Do the biceps respond to "stretch-mediated hypertrophy"? [Response to Paul Carter/LiftRunBang)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 бер 2023
- I've seen this claim float around so much that I thought I'd take some time to address it. No beef intended with Paul; just speaking on something I'm knowledgeable about.
Papers:
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22027...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34616...
www.mdpi.com/2075-4663/11/2/39
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti... - Спорт
Let me guess, he blocked you
He definitely did. Weakest man in the fitness industry
probably also mass reported him with bot accounts afterwards ...
@@snake1625b dude he just doesnt want idiots to respond to lol
@@superblazer3538 no he has low emotional maturity.
@@snake1625b no i like paul a lot and i understand where he comes from, too many clowns repeat bad information and he doesnt want to keep repeating himself
Would it be beneficial for hypertrophy on hammer preacher curl to turn your grip into pronation at the bottom? I can see it moving the bicep further down by a width of a finger.
Potentially! I think it makes sense. I'm not sure how much it lengthens the biceps, but it's probably worth a shot.
-Milo
Hi thanks for the explanation! what's your take on rep ranges being between 5-8 reps as higher reps (12+) may accrue fatigue?
Acutely, this is likely true (you see a greater drop-off in performance with higher reps). Whether this is true in the next session (say 24-72h later) is unclear. It's likely there are benefits to be had from including a variety of rep ranges for growth; see my video on "training heavy".
-Milo
Love these breakdowns. Everyone cautions against preacher curls as if getting a muscle tear is too likely. And we've all seen those horrific cases. What is your opinion on this risk? Can it be likely avoided if reps are kept in something like the 15-30 range? Regardless, I do like bayesean curls with the arm significantly behind you for a fully lengthened position. Just wondering if preacher curls are not the best choice for a second biceps exercise, due to safety concerns.
I think with graded exposure (i.e. not going from shortened partials to 1RM lengthened partials from one session to the next but easing into those positions and loading) and "good" technique, the risk probably isn't a problem!
-Milo
Does this suggest that a Scott or spider curl would be more beneficial than preacher or ?
I’ve been seeing questions about the short head attaching to the coracoid therefore it’s still affected by shoulder movements. Thoughts?
I have no clue whether it does! I've no knowledge about how to dissect cadavers nor have I seen anything on this. I pull my anatomy knowledge from anatomy textbooks and resources like exrx.
The short head of the biceps does indeed attach to the coracoid process of the scapula. Therefore, similar to the long head, its length is affected by variations in glenohumeral joint positioning.
In the Staniszewski and colleagues study, it was observed that "Arm circumference at rest increased by 1.7 cm (p
For sure! Null hypothesis significance testing (the way we determine whether we consider a difference "significant" or not within this specific branch of frequentist statistics) relies on both changes in size but also variance (e.g. standard deviations). In this case, due to a relatively small sample size and/or a relatively poor reliability of measurement and/or a high degree of individual difference in response (I couldn't tell you which of these contributed the most), the difference was not significant. TLDR: It was not significant because the ratio of effect (or signal) to variance (or noise) was too weak. Thus, the study probably doesn't support the notion much.
-Milo
Solid stuff man! Thanks for your using your knowledge/experience on this topic. Never fell for Carter's take on this. Team "Stretch-Mediated Hypertrophy" 🙌 good luck on your PhD!
arent cross sectional area and thickness the same thing?
He did a podcast with Chris Beardsley where he said it’s very possible that biceps COULD benefit from SMH but you’re better off being sure and loading it where it has its best leverage (because neuromechanical matching, especially in advanced lifters who have maxes out most of their stretch adaptations, rules). bascially preachers > spider/incline curls. It seems very weird how little neuromechanical matching is mentioned in all of the discussion on hypertrophy. Any thoughts?
Thank you for the explanation! I really appreciate your willingness to engage in this discussion. As a PhD candidate, I understand that you are busy and your time is valuable, so I am grateful for your patience in explaining the intricacies of scientific research to a layperson like myself. You've earned yourself a subscriber!
I still have some confusion, though, so I hope you can help clarify further. In your previous response, you mentioned that "the difference was not significant." Could you please specify which difference you are referring to?
From my understanding of the study, the hypothesis being tested regarding arm circumference is whether there is a significant difference in arm circumference after the 8-week training period. The abstract states that "Arm circumference at rest increased by 1.7 cm (p
Nah, that's not how statistical tests work. Long story short, the p-values you're referring to are for *within-group changes*. In other words, the p-values you're referring to describe the likelihood that "the changes in arm circumference seen from before the training period to after the training period are due to chance in the respective group". You're interpreting them as "the differences in arm circumference improvements BETWEEN groups are due to chance", but that's erroneous. The authors didn't report *between-group* p-values, likely because they weren't significant.
-Milo
Paul Crybaby sure knows how to cherry pick his studies.
It’s a skill 💯
Isn’t there also evidence suggesting the ECM plays a role in generating passive tension so for Paul to say descending limb is the reason for passive tension to occur doesn’t really stand well
@King James The endosarcomeric portion of the cytoskeleton is where titin is. There are transmembrane receptors that link ECM to the cytoskeleton and these interims form focal adhesions which anchor the ECM to the cytoskeleton and enable force transmission. So I think it’s more complicated that saying that the descending limb and passive tension are directly proportional and instead should be separated
I think passive tension isn't the only mechanism potentially involved here. The degree to which passive tension contributes to greater hypertrophy following longer-muscle length training is unclear. Partly because we're not sure how much additional passive tension is really experienced during most traditional exercises; partly because none of the direct studies have linked greater passive tension during LML training to greater hypertrophy.
Great explanation milo! Good luck on your PhD!
Thank you man!
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:04 📢 The claim is made that biceps don't benefit from "stretch-mediated hypertrophy."
00:22 📊 Three studies compared muscle length training for elbow flexors; two favored longer muscle length training, one had inconclusive results.
01:06 🔍 It's contested that the preacher curl exercise doesn't fully stretch the biceps, but this is only true for the biceps long head.
01:35 📏 Other elbow flexors achieve a near-maximal stretch in these studies.
02:03 🤨 Paul's claim that differences in hypertrophy might be due to leverage differences is questioned.
02:47 📝 Studies considered multiple elbow flexor muscles and not just the biceps.
03:27 ⚖️ All studies ensured participants in both groups trained with similar intensities.
03:42 ❓ Paul argues that fascicle length changes should be measured; however, evidence for this is inconclusive.
04:09 📈 Two of the studies mentioned measured muscle thickness instead of cross-sectional area.
04:52 📜 Summary: all three studies favor longer muscle length training for hypertrophy.
05:20 🔄 Several mechanisms may be at play for muscle hypertrophy, not just fascicle length changes.
05:48 🏋️ Current evidence suggests longer muscle length training is generally better for hypertrophy.
06:03 👁️ Further studies on range of motion and muscle hypertrophy are underway.
Made with HARPA AI
Do lats benefit from stretch mediated hypertrophy? Paul carter stated they dont
We don’t know for sure yet, but it stands to reason that they do. I’ve yet to see a muscle that doesn’t seem to benefit
Thank you for taking the time to provide your perspective. I continue to appreciate your willingness to engage in this discussion.
I'd like to respectfully clarify one point. I did not mistake the within-group (in-group) p-values for between-group p-values. I was aware that the reported p-values were for within-group changes in arm circumference, not for the between-group difference in increases in arm circumference. If you carefully reread my comments, you will note that.
I believe your comments did clarify the basis of your statements that "the only study that has looked at matching the resistance curve of an exercise to the strength curve of a muscle group... didn't find any benefit for muscle growth" and "the difference was not significant." These comments reflect your recognition that the authors of the study did not report p-values, and it is reasonable to assume that they did not because they found they weren't statistically significant. Is that right? Yet, I'm sure you recognize that another possibility is that the authors did not conduct that specific statistical analysis, which is why I was curious if you were aware of any other hypothesis tests or supplementary analyses conducted in the study that may not have been explicitly mentioned, or perhaps ones that you independently conducted.
Separately, is it fair to assume that while your statements suggest that the between-group difference in increases in arm circumference may not have reached statistical significance, you do recognize that the study demonstrated evidence of superior increases in muscle size resulting from using a specialized cam that matches the resistance curve of an exercise to the strength curve of a muscle group? Indeed, while the between-group differences may not have reached statistical significance, the observed numerical differences in arm circumference increases (1.7 cm in Hyp-Cam vs. 1.1 cm in Hyp-Disc) suggest potential practical significance, which warrants attention.
Additionally, I wanted to draw your attention to a study titled "Use of a variable-cam for strength training of the elbow flexors" by Michał Staniszewski et al., the same research team from the study you referenced.
In this study, the researchers compared two groups: Group C trained on a machine with a cam developed to correspond to the strength change characteristics of the flexor muscles as a function of the angular position in the elbow joint, while Group D trained on a machine with a disc plate. The results showed that after the 8-week training period, a significant increase in the values of peak torque (PT) and anthropometric parameters were observed only in Group C, which trained with the variable cam.
Specifically, the study found statistically significant increases in arm circumferences only in Group C, indicating the effectiveness of the specialized cam for muscle growth in the elbow flexors.
I wanted to inquire if you have considered this study in your examination of the body of research involving the elbow flexor hypertrophy benefits of training with exercises that match the resistance curve to the strength curve of the target muscle group. If not, do you accept it as one that provides evidence of hypertrophic benefits to the elbow flexors by using an exercise that matches the resistance curve to the strength curve?
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your thoughts on this matter.
No, they did run that test. A two-way ANOVA looks for groupxtime interaction effects - between-group significance testing.
The 2015 Stanizewski study is interesting. Again, no significant between-group differences were found. I wouldn't make the "strength -> hypertrophy" inference too readily when a study didn't measure it.
Overall - don't get me wrong. I'm not beholden to the "significant - not significant" dichotomy. But I'll need to see further evidence before my opinion shifts
-Milo
Final note.. while the "1.7 vs 1.1cm" may imply practical significance, the mean changes need to be interpreted alongside a measure of variance. Due to noise, you can often find such differences. This is where significance testing helps us tell whether it is merely noise or a true effect with greater confidence.
@@WolfCoaching I need to thank you for this discourse. It has been extremely insightful for me, leading to a significant development in my understanding of how research findings can be analyzed and understood, as well as improving my scientific literacy. Thank you, Milo!
Him and Brad blocked me because I asked for proof 😂
Brad Schoenfeld blocked you?
Paul blocked me as well haha.
That pigheaded idiot cherrypicks questions and studies to suit his training methods in his programs
What do you need proof for?
I think you're, like, the only guy who can put "wolf" in his name and actually be a beast 💀. That shapely (edited just to add that word) beard bro...
Thank you lmao. Fortunately Wolf is not my last name and not some random word I threw into my brand name!
But whose back is eating whose back tho?! Answer that science! /S
My back = EATEN.
W video
Ayyyy thank you man!
paul cárter put you in a body bag 💀💀
Paul Carter is correct and he's extensively gone over this
Unfortunately, Fascicle Length adaptations are not super well-documented in humans following shorter- vs longer-muscle length RT, so it's unclear whether that is the mechanism at play. Additionally, that wouldn't help explain proximal differences in hypertrophy following longer-muscle length RT. Finally, don't cop-out with neuromechanical matching; the most direct study we have on this doesn't support that it plays a meaningful role for growth. Until we do, it's a poor explanation for the results we're seeing.
@@WolfCoaching Is it true that fascicle lengths adaptations plateau? I read a claim by him that the adaptations you get from stretch-mediated hypertrophy (SMH) are maxed out after a couple months so there's no need for advanced trainees to implement SMH/training at longer muscle lengths or pausing in the stretched position, etc. (since they've already probably maxed it out).
But I feel like... that doesn't make sense? lol
The short head does cross the shoulder. However in the case of both biceps, the length change at the elbow is greater, around 4x in the last model I looked at. So despite the shoulder flexion, it’s a “relatively long length if your using the bottom half of elbow flexion in the ROM comparison.
Anything Paul goes over “extensively” has a decent probability of being made up in my experience.
Paul carter will reverse his views on all his training methods in 5 years time just like he did ages ago, he’s a fucking idiot
@@Ask-Alihave you found an answer to this?