MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
High Reps for Lower Myostatin
1 | 2 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

coach-jeff

Louisiana, USA

Interesting stuff....

https://www.youtube.com/...h?v=nVaJWm2YrRY

"Myostatin (also known as growth differentiation factor 8, abbreviated GDF-8) is a protein that in humans is encoded by the MSTN gene.[1] Myostatin is a secreted growth differentiation factor that is a member of the TGF beta protein family that inhibits muscle differentiation and growth in the process known as myogenesis. Myostatin is produced primarily in skeletal muscle cells, circulates in the blood and acts on muscle tissue, by binding a cell-bound receptor called the activin type II receptor.[2][3]

Animals lacking myostatin or animals treated with substances that block the activity of myostatin have significantly larger muscles." - Wikipedia

======================================

So in other words...the LESS myostatin, the more muscle you can build.

For instance, apparently Flex Wheeler had a myostatin gene 'deletion' which allowed him to build loads of size, despite having a reputation for being a half-ass trainer.

The boy in photo above also has this "condition"...I'd LOVE to have that condition!

Above is a short video clip talking about a study that compared heavy 6-rep training to 20-rep sets, in terms of effect upon myostatin levels. (Muscle biopsies were also done).

Apparently the 20-rep trainees had only 1/3 the myostatin of the 6-rep trainees! Indicating that perhaps super heavy loads may actually INCREASE myostatin. Or that high reps perhaps suppress it.

Would of course have to know the subjects baseline levels before the study to ascertain cause and effect with greater clarity.

I'm a big fan of higher rep training, and include 15 to 20 rep sets more often in training, than 8 to 12.

And I find myself leaning even more and more in the "high rep direction" lately.

So when I talk about training for strength, I'm talking about strength in higher rep ranges than people usually associate with pure "strength" training.

And the higher reps really put the tension where you want it...the MUSCLE...whereas lower rep training results in you feeling it almost as much in tendons and joints.
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

==Scott==
I don't have a clue about myostatin but I do know I enjoy and get better feel with 20 and 30 rep sets much more than 6 rep sets.
Open User Options Menu

Brian Johnston

Ontario, CAN

That's why I favor Zone Training... it allows you to complete more contractions per unit of time... I can get 20-24 in very good form in 60-seconds, thus allowing the muscles to remain in the anaerobic energy system with a decent weight and to achieve a deep inroad in far less time and sets than with conventional training.
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

And the higher reps really put the tension where you want it...the MUSCLE...whereas lower rep training results in you feeling it almost as much in tendons and joints.

==Scott==
and speaking of tendons and joints I still can't figure out how you can stack all those machines with out looking huge. There must be something about the tendons and joints more than the muscles that allow you do do what you do??
Open User Options Menu

dipsrule

Pennsylvania, USA

Wasnt there a story where that kid was giving something by his father.
Open User Options Menu

coach-jeff

Louisiana, USA

entsminger wrote:
and speaking of tendons and joints I still can't figure out how you can stack all those machines with out looking huge. There must be something about the tendons and joints more than the muscles that allow you do do what you do??


Hard to say for certain. I've always been strong "for my size"...but I'm not that small really. About 207 at 6 foot. The 'guns' are about 16.25. So not BB huge by any stretch at this point in life, but not exactly small either.

In my prime, at age 29-30, my upper arms were just a bit shy of 17 inches. Never was able to break past that.

I'm semi-frequently told my chest is actually too big. My wife actually told me to quit training it, because it looks out of proportion with everything else.

It grows much easier than my arms. As does my back. My legs, glutes, calves and arms are very resistant to growth.

But I know what you mean...my guess is that guys who can lift more other people the same size, or even bigger guys, has more to do with neurological efficiency than tendons or joints.

I actually only have 6.75 inch wrists, so no big robust joints on me. I also get tendonitis very easily with overly heavy weight training, so I doubt my tendons are much of a factor. Especially since I lift smooth and controlled, and try not to tap into the stored elastic energy of tendons.

I simply think there are people...and that I'm perhaps one of them...who're genetically able to tap into a higher percentage of available fibers than average. Thus being able to express strength/power at higher rates than one's size would indicate.

Much like we've all some pretty swole guys lifting what I view as girl-weights. Yet they are pumped and jacked looking.
Open User Options Menu

coach-jeff

Louisiana, USA

dipsrule wrote:
Wasnt there a story where that kid was giving something by his father.


Could be. Not sure.

But even if that is the case in that particular situation, there are others like that.


Open User Options Menu

Brian Johnston

Ontario, CAN

I think that was a different kid... the one where they did a documentary on him? Maybe 2-3 years older than this one? I could be wrong.
Open User Options Menu

coach-jeff

Louisiana, USA

Here's photos of a normal mouse vs one given some kind of myostatin inhibitor.

Perhaps this will be the future of bodybuilding? No need to lift, just take a myostatin blocker?

I may be out of work if that ever happens.

Open User Options Menu

coach-jeff

Louisiana, USA

And just one more photo of a rather large herbivore that was bred to produce less myostatin. Think they call it a Belgian Blue.

Open User Options Menu

dipsrule

Pennsylvania, USA

The dad was giving the kid special milkshakes
Open User Options Menu

dipsrule

Pennsylvania, USA

coach-jeff wrote:
Here's photos of a normal mouse vs one given some kind of myostatin inhibitor.

Perhaps this will be the future of bodybuilding? No need to lift, just take a myostatin blocker?

I may be out of work if that ever happens.



This is one way they make there claims.Supplement companies lie. LOL what else is new.

I copied this

What they fail to tell you is that these alterations were achieved through state-of-the-art genetic engineering techniques such as cell cloning and pre-birth gene manipulation.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

It is more complicated than just taking up high rep sets.

Muscles most likely need various rep schemes. Muscle growth does not just revolve around myostatin. There are a myriad factors involved.

Bodybuilding's mental pollution of increased muscle mass at all costs mentality is certainly not wise or healthy for some. Remember IGF-1...mTOR..increased cellular growth promotion may lead to premature aging and CANCER.

Good judgement comes from mistakes....remember what Arthur said?
Open User Options Menu

coach-jeff

Louisiana, USA

marcrph wrote:
It is more complicated than just taking up high rep sets.

Muscles most likely need various rep schemes. Muscle growth does not just revolve around myostatin. There are a myriad factors involved.

Bodybuilding's mental pollution of increased muscle mass at all costs mentality is certainly not wise or healthy for some. Remember IGF-1...mTOR..increased cellular growth promotion may lead to premature aging and CANCER.

Good judgement comes from mistakes....remember what Arthur said?


I don't think anyone thinks or has implied that high-rep training and myostatin suppression are THE end-all-be all for BB.

But it is intriguing that it could be at least PART of the puzzle for lots of folks.

Especially in light of the fact that sooo many are wrecking their body with ultra heavy training all the time. I mean heck, if one could get as good or better results with 20-rep sets, which most would agree are far easier on joints, then why take risk of getting hurt with doing 6 rep sets too often, right?

And yes...excess IGF, while helpful for muscles, may indeed fuel cancer, acne, nearsightedness, etc.

But we must also consider that muscle growth occurs more from ACUTE, LOCALIZED, and DIRECT action of IGF on muscle tissue, rather than via chronically high systemic IGF levels; which are indeed pathogenic and cancer fueling in my opinion.

And I think there is at least some controversy over whether or not HGH actually builds muscle?

Though it certainly seems to hypertrophy organs, resulting in GH distended guts that have ruined bodybuilding.

I would guess HGH also helps promote connective tissue repair and thickening, thereby MAYBE reducing the chance of tendon tear. But I could be totally wrong about that, since so many seem to be ripping tendons these days.
Open User Options Menu

coach-jeff

Louisiana, USA

And of course we should also consider time under tension along with rep-ranges.

For instance, if you try to do 20 rep training at a 10/10 speed you'll be doing aerobic training basically.

I have not had time to look at the actual study yet, but my guess is that both groups trained with typical 1/1 rep speeds. Maybe as slow as 1.5/1.5.

Thus the 6 rep group did around 12 to 18 second sets. Give or take a few seconds.

The 20-rep group likely did 40 to 60 second sets. Give or take. Pretty consistent with the TUT generally recommended in HIT circles. (Though NOT superslow, with it's crazy long 2-minute+ sets)
Open User Options Menu

Keyser S?

coach-jeff wrote:
Interesting stuff....

https://www.youtube.com/...h?v=nVaJWm2YrRY

"Myostatin (also known as growth differentiation factor 8, abbreviated GDF-8) is a protein that in humans is encoded by the MSTN gene.[1] Myostatin is a secreted growth differentiation factor that is a member of the TGF beta protein family that inhibits muscle differentiation and growth in the process known as myogenesis. Myostatin is produced primarily in skeletal muscle cells, circulates in the blood and acts on muscle tissue, by binding a cell-bound receptor called the activin type II receptor.[2][3]

Animals lacking myostatin or animals treated with substances that block the activity of myostatin have significantly larger muscles." - Wikipedia

======================================

So in other words...the LESS myostatin, the more muscle you can build.

For instance, apparently Flex Wheeler had a myostatin gene 'deletion' which allowed him to build loads of size, despite having a reputation for being a half-ass trainer.

The boy in photo above also has this "condition"...I'd LOVE to have that condition!

Above is a short video clip talking about a study that compared heavy 6-rep training to 20-rep sets, in terms of effect upon myostatin levels. (Muscle biopsies were also done).

Apparently the 20-rep trainees had only 1/3 the myostatin of the 6-rep trainees! Indicating that perhaps super heavy loads may actually INCREASE myostatin. Or that high reps perhaps suppress it.

Would of course have to know the subjects baseline levels before the study to ascertain cause and effect with greater clarity.

I'm a big fan of higher rep training, and include 15 to 20 rep sets more often in training, than 8 to 12.

And I find myself leaning even more and more in the "high rep direction" lately.

So when I talk about training for strength, I'm talking about strength in higher rep ranges than people usually associate with pure "strength" training.

And the higher reps really put the tension where you want it...the MUSCLE...whereas lower rep training results in you feeling it almost as much in tendons and joints.


My understanding is that myostatin is the muscle cells closest equivilent to leptin.

In both cases I think the function is to pull you towards a set point, although this can change. This may be one reason why regaining lost muscle is easier.

When you look at leptin levels after a high calorie meal I have read that they go up, because the purpose is homeostasis. I expect this is the same here so to me the higher levels of myostatin could equally or more likely indicate that low reps are the best way to get muscular, just as high calorie meals are the best way to get fat.
Open User Options Menu

coomo

coach-jeff wrote:
(Though NOT superslow, with it's crazy long 2-minute+ sets)

How do you perform leg presses, in a slow precise manner, for 12/15 reps, and NT exceed 2 minutes.Today, 14 reps took me 2.44.I dont consider myself a S/S disciple,nor do i try and "remain" in a rep for a specific period.
It just takes that long ,if you want to remove momentum.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

coach-jeff wrote:
I don't think anyone thinks or has implied that high-rep training and myostatin suppression are THE end-all-be all for BB.


Glad to see common sense has prevailed.



But it is intriguing that it could be at least PART of the puzzle for lots of folks.


Intriguing...YES! Part of the Puzzle? Yes! Stand alone technique? No!


Especially in light of the fact that sooo many are wrecking their body with ultra heavy training all the time. I mean heck, if one could get as good or better results with 20-rep sets, which most would agree are far easier on joints, then why take risk of getting hurt with doing 6 rep sets too often, right?


2 reason for low reps:
1) sports
2) Targeting fast twitch fibers



And yes...excess IGF, while helpful for muscles, may indeed fuel cancer, acne, nearsightedness, etc.



However, this is a useful discussion....because for the everyday person, endurance is a much more important quality to develop...which is why the ARMY does loads of endurance training. Just to remind all, there are 8-12 hour work days for the working class. Maximal strength is not as useful in everyday life as endurance is. To be 1st, you must 1st finish!


But we must also consider that muscle growth occurs more from ACUTE, LOCALIZED, and DIRECT action of IGF on muscle tissue, rather than via chronically high systemic IGF levels; which are indeed pathogenic and cancer fueling in my opinion.


And more reps have the potential to cause more tissue damage. It's a balancing act!



And I think there is at least some controversy over whether or not HGH actually builds muscle?

Though it certainly seems to hypertrophy organs, resulting in GH distended guts that have ruined bodybuilding.

I would guess HGH also helps promote connective tissue repair and thickening, thereby MAYBE reducing the chance of tendon tear. But I could be totally wrong about that, since so many seem to be ripping tendons these days.


Growth hormone has it's uses...it too must be in balance. As you can see....a bodybuilding pollution paradigm of building excessive mass at all costs is not sound or wise. Much better is to use resistance training to enhance health and longevity.
Open User Options Menu

Mega-duty

I have found that light weights, multi sets, multi angles and 20 reps at middle range of movement works better than anything else before.
Open User Options Menu

Brian Johnston

Ontario, CAN

Achieve pre-fatigue and blood engorgement with the lighter stuff... then finish off with the heavy. This is not ideal for maximizing strength/exercise performance, but works for bodybuilders striving to keep the heavy stuff in the program with fewer complications.
Open User Options Menu

coach-jeff

Louisiana, USA

Keyser S? wrote:

My understanding is that myostatin is the muscle cells closest equivilent to leptin.

In both cases I think the function is to pull you towards a set point, although this can change. This may be one reason why regaining lost muscle is easier.

When you look at leptin levels after a high calorie meal I have read that they go up, because the purpose is homeostasis. I expect this is the same here so to me the higher levels of myostatin could equally or more likely indicate that low reps are the best way to get muscular, just as high calorie meals are the best way to get fat.


Could be. I need to look up the study to see what the muscle biopsies from the study showed.

Regarding leptin...yeah that one was going to be THE magic bullet back when first discovered in 1997. Just pump fat people full of leptin, then viola...watch those unsightly excess pounds simply melt away.

Of course leptin is secreted by fat cells, but it was assumed (One of those medical assumptions eventually proved wrong) that obese folks must suffer from a leptin deficiency, despite high fat-mass.

But turned out obese people have MORE leptin than the rest of us. So if leptin is supposed to "put the breaks on" excess fat accumulation, what was keeping with these people fat? Why was leptin failing to do it's job?

Leptin resistance.



Open User Options Menu

coach-jeff

Louisiana, USA

coomo wrote:
coach-jeff wrote:
(Though NOT superslow, with it's crazy long 2-minute+ sets)
How do you perform leg presses, in a slow precise manner, for 12/15 reps, and NT exceed 2 minutes.Today, 14 reps took me 2.44.I dont consider myself a S/S disciple,nor do i try and "remain" in a rep for a specific period.
It just takes that long ,if you want to remove momentum.


I do leg presses at about 1.5/1.5 to 2/2. 20 reps takes me 60-80 seconds.

If I ever went to slower reps, which I think I may do, I would adjust reps down to keep TUT about the same.

Open User Options Menu

Keyser S?

coach-jeff wrote:
Keyser S? wrote:

My understanding is that myostatin is the muscle cells closest equivilent to leptin.

In both cases I think the function is to pull you towards a set point, although this can change. This may be one reason why regaining lost muscle is easier.

When you look at leptin levels after a high calorie meal I have read that they go up, because the purpose is homeostasis. I expect this is the same here so to me the higher levels of myostatin could equally or more likely indicate that low reps are the best way to get muscular, just as high calorie meals are the best way to get fat.

Could be. I need to look up the study to see what the muscle biopsies from the study showed.

Regarding leptin...yeah that one was going to be THE magic bullet back when first discovered in 1997. Just pump fat people full of leptin, then viola...watch those unsightly excess pounds simply melt away.

Of course leptin is secreted by fat cells, but it was assumed (One of those medical assumptions eventually proved wrong) that obese folks must suffer from a leptin deficiency, despite high fat-mass.

But turned out obese people have MORE leptin than the rest of us. So if leptin is supposed to "put the breaks on" excess fat accumulation, what was keeping with these people fat? Why was leptin failing to do it's job?

Leptin resistance.





Hmmm

Just quickly scanned this.

http://www.google.co.uk/....69620078,d.d2k

It seems like the guy in the video is just drunk. Looks as though he's got it backwards.





Open User Options Menu

Keyser S?

I'd like to see the study he's taking about because if it's the case as it looks to be in the study I linked that mstn is lower with 80% RM or low intensity restricted bloodflow than it is with low intensity 20%RM. But is lower than 80% at 20RM which I guess would be about 60%RM then that implies 20RM to be a sweet spot since we already know for a fact that 80% and low intensity restricted bloodflow outperform 20%RM.

Open User Options Menu

Keyser S?

I actually think the most interesting thing for me in this study is yet more evidence (and somehow the myostatin results being the same with HI and LIR makes it much more solid for me) Occlusion training works.

But how safe can Kaatsu/occlusion traing be? I read that the inventor of Kaatsu nearly died from it.
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy