“Theory has to comply with experimentation 100% of the time. If there is even one instance where theory does not comply with experimentation, than the theory either has to be thrown out or changed to incorporate the new information. In science, experimentation trumps all.” – Ryan Hall
In the comments following a previous post about negative emphasized repetitions someone brought up that Ryan Hall debunked the inroad theory of growth stimulation and there was a request for his comments on this. I asked and received permission from Ryan to share something he wrote about this previously, which follows.
I will be interviewing Ryan on this topic next week, so if you have questions about this please post them in the comments section below. I will not be addressing the questions in the comments section here, but they will be included in my interview with Ryan which will be posted next week.
Ryan Wrote,
As you and I have discussed on the phone before, the concept of inroad is extremely flawed and not indicative of what is actually occurring physiologically. I wish I could take a shot-gun and blow the concept of inroad away, but I guess the written word accompanied by supporting data will have to suffice. Concentric failure or short term muscle fatigue is not necessarily indicative of microtrauma / long term force decrement, as evidenced by the following studies:
Development of T-tubular vacuoles in eccentrically damaged mouse muscle fibres
Ella W. Yeung, Christopher D. Balnave, Heather J. Ballard, J.-P. Bourreau and David G. Allen
Journal of Physiology(2002), 540.2, pp.581–592Vacuole formation in fatigued skeletal muscle fibres from frog and mouse: effects of extracellular lactate
Jan Lannergren, Joseph D. Bruton and Hakan Westerblad
Journal of Physiology (2000), 526.3, pp. 597—611 597Stretch-activated ion channels contribute to membrane depolarization after eccentric contractions
Todd A. McBride, Bradley W. Stockert, Fredric A. Gorin, and Richard C. Carlsen
Appl. Physiol. 88: 91 – 101, 2000.Uncoupling of in vivo torque production from EMG in mouse muscles injured by eccentric contractions
Gordon L. Warren, Christopher P. Ingalls, Shree J. Shah and R. B. Armstrong
Journal of Physiology (1999), 515.2, pp. 609—619In isolated muscle fiber studies and animal models, non fatiguing eccentric protocols produced significant and extended force decrements over fatiguing isometric protocols. In many cases, force production in the isometric groups returned to pre-stimulus values within hours, even though the muscles were stimulated to the point where force production was no longer possible (complete short term fatigue). Whereas in the eccentric groups, force production did not reach pre-stimulus values for a much longer time interval (10-14 days). In the McBride et al study (2000) the lower repetition eccentric group experienced a longer force decrement (14 days) as compared to the higher eccentric repetition group (10 days). Although, this was likely due to the intensity (tension) and not necessarily the repetition number (greater tension requiring a lower repetition number).
Warren et al (1999) showed the following:
“Peak torque declined by 43% from the first to the last contraction in the ECC protocol, whereas peak torque did not change significantly during the CON protocol. Immediately after the ECC protocol, isometric torques were significantly decreased at all stimulation frequencies with the greatest relative deficits (i.e. 83—-89 %) occurring at stimulation frequencies ≤ 125 Hz (Fig. 3); at stimulation frequencies ≥ 250 Hz, the percentage decreases in isometric torque were 47-—49 %. In the 14 days following the ECC protocol, isometric torque showed a progressive recovery, but even at 14 days post-protocol, torques at all stimulation frequencies were lower than baseline levels by 12—-30 %. Immediately after the CON protocol, isometric torques measured at stimulation frequencies ≥ 250 Hz were increased by 5—-7% while torques at ≤ 100 Hz were decreased by 18—-25% (Fig. 3). Isometric torques measured at all stimulation frequencies were not different from baseline levels 1 day after the CON protocol and did not change until 14 days after the CON protocol. Fourteen days after the CON protocol, isometric torques measured at stimulation frequencies ≥ 125 Hz were significantly greater than baseline levels by 10—-11 %.”
See also:
Topical ReviewMuscle damage from eccentric exercise: mechanism, mechanical signs, adaptation and clinical applications
U. Proske and D. L. Morgan
Journal of Physiology(2001), 537.2, pp.333–-345These studies demonstrate that the concept of “inroad” is flawed. We are dealing with two different physiological phenomena. The first is short term muscle fatigue / force decrement due to metabolic perturbations, substrate depletion, and possibly short term changes in the t-tubules. The second is long term force decrement resulting from damage to the contractile and non-contractile cytoskeletal proteins, plasma membrane, and longer term changes in the t-tubules (such as the formation of vacuoles) accompanied by other disruptions in the E-C coupling system distal to the neuromuscular junction.
Comments on this entry are closed.
Ryans in depth knowledge of muscle physiology never ceases to amaze me. Great stuff, however I’d like to have something clarified and potentially point out one flaw.
In the previous post on negative emphasised training you mentioned a study by Wayne Wescott saying negative emphasised outperformed other protocols but didn’t really clarify what the outcome measure of the study was. Was it strength, hypertrophy? If either of them how where they measured? I ask only because, although very interesting, the studies that Ryan has cited are what, in light of Chris’ recent post, I would call ‘black box’ studies. They describe acute processes i.e. whats going on in the muscle after differing protocols, and how that affects subsequent torque production, but unless there are empirical randomised controlled trials employing these protocols as interventions and looking at appropriate outcome measures they don’t really provide support for the superiority of one protocol over another.
Understanding of the acute processes I think is important to direct further research, for example a lot of recent research looks at measures of acute ‘protein synthesis’ in response to different protocols i.e. high vs low volume, occluded training etc. But they draw the assumption that the higher measure of an acute surrogate marker in one arm of the trial compared to another will necessarily translate into a greater chronic hypertophic response. When we look at the volume example for instance however and consider the empirical data, the training studies, we see that low volume, single set exercise is just as effective as high volume, multiple set exercise in producing strength increases and hypertophy.
I’d like to know more about Wescotts study in light of this in order to see if the empirical data ties up with our knowledge of the ‘black box’ processes.
James,
Westcott compared strength increases in experienced trainees who plateaued.
Consider most research comparing the effect of different volumes of training is of insufficient duration to rule out skill improvements and neural adaptations – both of which benefit from more frequent practice – as a significant factor in exercise performance. Also, consider a key difference between high intensity training programs involving single set to failure and typical multi-set programs is the level of effort, something which would be standardized if the independent variable is volume, but is not the same in practice. Most exercise research is very poorly designed, poorly performed, and often interpreted by people with an incomplete understanding of the effects of the different variables involved.
I’ll make sure to bring this up in the interview with Ryan.
Is there anything that ectomorphs, hardgainers should or could do differently in their training than others in order to stimulate muscle growth?
Or is it the same with them that the main growth factors are tension and microtrauma and ectomorphs also can achieve their genetic potential with the same protocols as others? For example, should they also follow negative emphasized protocol with the same number of reps, set duration etc to get their best results? Thank you!
That’s what I’m talking about, although it still doesn’t give a real clear picture of the whole story. But, just the simple fact that something like power factor, max contraction, or static contraction for mere seconds (sometimes 1-6 seconds only), and something as long as a 2 min plus SS set demonstrates that both can be effective, but according to inroad theory, a 6 second contraction wouldn’t be “inroading” hardly at all. Nevertheless, it is effective and has been one of my favorite and most productive advanced techniques to use.
Dear Drew,
1.) Thank you for all the information you provide freely through this site. It saved me from doing stupid shit many of my genetically advantaged colleagues in the modeling business are doing (p90x and similar nonsense).
2.)A few questions:
From your past writings I gather that, trainingwise to maximize hypertrophy time under tension as opposed to rep counting is superior for tracking progress. Yet I am “confined” to free weights and need a decent reprange (8 to 12 was a common one I did during my newbie phase). I think I am now in the intermediate stage of training (2.1 bodyweight deadlift,dipping with 100 pounds aroung my waist,chinups with 30 kg around my waist, 110 kg row at a bodyweight 75 kg, I am 5 foot 11 tall, bodyfat hovers between 5 and 8 percent, ectomorphic bodytype,22 years old,started training properly in HITfashion a year ago after stagnating on volumesque routines).
Martin Berkhan promotes the formula of height -100 to determine maximum muscular weight in reasonably lean condition.
For me that is 78kg, so let´s make it 80 kg.
Relative Strength standards are (correct me if I´m wrong)2.5 bodyweight deads, 1.5 bodyweight bench/row/chinup/dip and 2 bodyweight squat. For me this would in theory require: 200+kg deads, 160+kg squats and 120+ kg Bench/Row/Chinup/Dip to be at my most muscular.
What considerations should the intermediate trainee make in terms of volume,frequency, repranges etc…, to succesfully and as quickly as possible (which is as always still slow),take oneself to the advanced level?
Fairly general answers are fine, keep in mind that my livelihood depends on me being as muscular and lean (which I know is all diet, I am not asking for advice on diet) as possible, without the aid of black-market drugs. Hence I cannot afford to “bulk”, only “recomp”,which all else being equal slows my progress.
Tricky situation to be in I assume. Sorry if my English reads weirdly, it isn´t my first language.
Kind regards
Marcelo Diez
Marcelo,
Both time under load and repetition count are valid means of measuring exercise performance as long as the style of performance is consistent from workout to workout. Time under load is better suited to some protocols, repetition count is better suited to others.
Muscular potential is influenced by a variety of genetic factors unrelated to height or bone structure. You can not accurately estimate how muscular a person can become by measurements like height, wrist and ankle circumference, etc. At best they might give you an idea of what someone with average genetics with similar measurements might achieve.
Muscular strength is also influenced by a variety of genetic factors and the performance of one repetition maximums (something I do not recommend) is highly skill dependent. Relative strength standards are meaningless.
The same general principles apply to beginners, intermediate and advanced trainees. You just adjust the application of those principles as you progress based on your goals and your body’s response to exercise as training intensity increases.
This statement by Ryan is especially telling, Concentric failure or short term muscle fatigue is not necessarily indicative of microtrauma / long term force decrement”.
I think this is the key here. I think that much of the back and forth on this has to do with the fact that inroad isn’t by definition a physiological term. It’s purpose isn’t to describe the physiological process, but instead is merely supposed to aid as a conceptual marker for what we see externally. All inroad is supposed to state(if viewed properly)is that an optimal blending of tension and rate of fatigue will create a significant strength loss.
Failure and inroad are not synonymous…AT ALL. It may just so happen that inroad isn’t the best term to use to succintly describe the TOTALITY of the training process, but I’ll continue to use it until we have another. Ideally and optimal “inroad” will show what these studies showed….increased torque production. With feedback, this is what we are seeing.
What James wrote is heading in the right direction IMHO.
Be well,
Al
Al,
During the interview we’ll be discussing the problems with the concept of inroad as a focus of training or as an indicator of effective exercise.
Good stuff Drew. Looking forward to the next post with Ryan… I find it funny (or, should I say, frustrating) that many trainers and researchers will conclude that negative-accentuated/emphasized training isn’t a good tool/approach, at least in the long run, since you’ll need to reduce volume of training, both on a per session basis and in terms of number of seesions per week, to compensate for the extra work!?!?! Say what???? Goes back to your recent article “Results versus Time”…
Thanks Drew, look forward to the discussion on it.
You’re damn right about the problem with interpreting studies. Intensity appropriately defined as level of effort is the one thing that 99% of studies do not appropriately define and therefore do not appropriately control for. First thing I do when picking up any paper on resistance training is go straight to the methods section and look to see whether they had participants train to failure or not. If not then the level’s of effort between protocols can’t be said to be controlled and therefore the intensity.
Just a reiteration of my first comment but I think people should be more clear when defining what makes something an effective exercise/protocol etc.
“…an indicator of effective exercise” isn’t an acute surrogate marker of a physiological process. More appropriately it should be the intended goal of the training i.e. strength, hypertrophy and how different exercises/protocols compare when that is accurately measured using a valid outcome measure.
James,
Exactly. If the real dependent variable is muscle hypertrophy that is what they should be measuring. Researchers should be measuring other variables along with and comparing to muscle hypertrophy, rather than making assumptions about hypertrophy based on measurement of those variables in isolation.
Drew,
Could you explain what is meant by “tension” in the context of the discussion above? I think I understand what is meant, but I don’t see how this isn’t redundant to either reps or TUL; i.e., musn’t there be a certain amount of tension involved in either case? I assume I’m missing something very basic.
Hey Will,
Ryan is referring to the tension in the working muscles during an exercise. This isn’t about reps versus time under load – it is about the inroad theory of growth stimulation.
Thanks for posting this Drew. I’ve always connected inroad with failure training and failure training with HIT. I’m wondering if non-failure training can ever fit under the HIT umbrella? At first thought I think it can (although I’m not sure I’ve thought this through enough yet). I think if tension and effort is high, going to failure may not required or wanted, especially if trying to minimize fatigue. I’m sure this is not new to you or Ryan so I’c love to hear your guys’ thoughts.
Just a reminder, please limit comments to questions regarding inroad and muscle hypertrophy for the interview with Ryan Hall.
If you have comments or questions about other topics send them to me directly. If I can answer them in a few sentences I will do so by e-mail as time permits. If you have multiple questions or questions requiring more discussion or explanation I am available for phone consultations.
Hi Drew,
I am looking forward to the discussion with you and Ryan on muscle inroad, from the post already a lot of other people are also greatly interested.
I hope that this sounds right. You mentioned inroad theory of growth stimulation I understand the gentic factors but a lot of women say they “don’t want big muscles” as soon as you mention muscle hypertophy to women they tend to shy away, are we also including strength increases?
Hey Steven,
Yes, also talking about strength increases. Although the ratio of strength to hypertrophy gains varies between individuals the two go hand in hand.
Women shouldn’t worry about getting too bulky. With a few very rare exceptions they couldn’t if they tried. Most women, especially middle aged and older, are severely undermuscled and would benefit from an increase.
More questions:
If inroad is overrated for size and strength gains, is it really that important to push beyond failure in our sets, as this would seem to be a tactic to gain further inroad?
Also, again, is even pushing to failure as important as we have traditionally thought in the HIT world?
Is the traditional definition of intensity, that of using a high % of ones max weight in a set, just as important (or more important) than intensity of effort (as it pertains to training to failure and beyond, for maximum size and strength gains?
Am I confused?
Probably.
“Concentric failure or short term muscle fatigue is not necessarily indicative of microtrauma / long term force decrement”
I believe that much of this has to do with glycogen depletion. Studies show significant depletion (~1/3 of pre-exercise stores) with intense exercise. Other studies show that microtrauma (like seen with ECC) does delay glycogen replenishment. This explains much of the different recovery times as observed in the studies Ryan cited.
But this doesn’t mean that a longer recovery time (longer lasting “Inroad”) is a bigger hypertrophy-stimulus.
If glycogen stores are not completely replenished or even better supercompensated when you train the same exercise next time you won’t match your reps/TUL, let alone improve (except by cheating!).
I feel that currently in HIT-discussions there’s too much emphasis on microtrauma and too little on glycogen depletion as a potential stimulus for hypertrophy.
Btw, I even remember one study showing depletion of glycogen from the forarms while running (indirect effect?).
Oh, and I belive the avoidance of (too much) microtrauma to be the “magic” beyond “machine based slow with perfect form” training or (proper) isometric training for those of us who are more prone to microtrauma and/or need longer then average times to repair it.
Dear Drew,
thank your very much for your answer.
Just to clarify:I didn´t mean these values as one repetition maximums, but in the context of a reprange, say 5 to 10 reps.
But I shouldn´t worry about that anyway, I gather.
It seems there is only intelligent and consistent Program design to be looked after. After that I should go to failure and progressively overload for as long as I can. “Beyond Brawn”-esque simplicity.
Kind regards
Marcelo Diez
Drew
Good stuff. If you are looking for discussion points with Ryan I would really be interested in learning more about the whole hypertrophy process.
As I understand it there are three elements that it is thought drive hypertrophy:
– mechanical tension in the muscle
– metabolic issues flowing from the anaerobic / glycogen driven processes
– trauma from damage to the muscle – the “wound” model.
Each supposeduly via various pathways signal muscel growth (via mTOR or whatever)
As I understand inroad it tends to be presented as a deterioration in strength ie, you start of lifting x and you end up being able to shift only x/2 or whatever. As peple have said I am not sure that this metric is an accurate proxy for any of the three physiological processes.
Hi Drew, this morning I tried a workout using negative emphasized repetitions, and I instantly noticed two things:
1) Towards the end of the set and right after, my muscles feel different. Instead of the typical burning sensation, they rather go numb. Not sure whether other people can validate this observation, but to me it seems to underscore that a longer negative stroke really does make a physiological difference.
2) As you’ve said, it is possible to use higher weights. Today I stuck to my regular weights, but I was able to improve my TUTs in all exercises. In the next workout, I will increase the resistance.
As you can see, you’ve got me hooked. There is one question I have for Ryan: Does it make sense to combine negative emphasized repetitions with other intensification techniques, especially rest-pause training in its traditional form, and Max-Stim?
Klaus,
Subjectively-speaking, I also have to say that negative-emphasized or accentuated work always feels “different”. More tiring, generally-speaking, especially if trying to keep rest periods between exercises on the shorter side, and certainly this will vary depending on the area being worked. Hams, for example, are notorious for being much stronger eccentrically, and doing leg curls in this fashion really drains me compared to a more standard protocol.
Drew and Ryan… I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on how to approach the various eccentric-oriented protocols (negative-only vs negative-accentuated vs negative-emphasized), especially in terms of adjustments to load, TUT or reps, tempo and volume, the latter both in terms of “number of exercises per session” and number of “sessions per week”. The “effort” or at the very least, muscle soreness, will be higher and so, I would be curious to hear about both of you guy’s thoughts on these areas…
Negative-emphasized PLUS rest-pause!!!! Klaus, you’re a masochist man 🙂
Eric, thanks for your reply.
You’re right, I AM a masochist – but maybe not enough so to stand combining both of these techniques. Whenever I add some rest-pause reps after ending my “regular” set, I wonder whether I’m not holding something back when approaching failure for the first time, thus disrupting the regular set earlier than necessary.
As the more recent incarnations of rest-pause (such as Max-Stim, which Drew has favourably reviewed here some time ago, or Myo-reps) do not place such a high permium on reaching failure, but merely try to maximize work being done close to failure, holding back half a rep initially may not be such a cardinal sin after all. This is made up by additional rest-pause reps afterwards.
Still, simultaneously using these two techniques could be too much of a good thing if you are not able to execute them properly any more due to the high strain, I see what you are saying.
Another issue I see with adding rest-pause to negative emphasized training is that it could interfere with tension. Drew stresses the importance of smooth turnaraounds to ensure that the muscle is kept under continuous tension throughout the whole set, and of course taking intra-set breaks completely negates this endeavor.
As Eric, I’d also like a discussion of negative-only training in comparison to negative emphasized training, especially in regard to the issue of continuous tension described above. Maybe a single extended negative ultraslow rep, stretching over at least 30 seconds? Not sure whether that is practical…
Klaus,
The issue of training to failure has been addressed in a few articles on this site. I cover this in more detail in the book on form coming later this summer.
Hi Drew,
In the Nautilus Bulletins The Fifth Step (pp.219-222) Arthur Jones mentions “surplus of fibers” reserve and a “chemical” reserve…he further mentions…”it is NOT desriable to work inside the levels of reserve ability provided by this form of chemical “supercharging”-because among other things, doing so exerts an enourmous drain on the overall recovery ability”.
Are Arthur’s comments above in relation to what you have mentioned about tension and load been the main factors and not necessary the deep inroad that would require chemical “supercharging”, is this what Ryan is also stating about debunking inroad”.
Arthur further mentions chemical “supercharging”…”The possible benefits are far outweighed by the very real disadvantages; some possible results are ulcers, heart attacks, extreme nervousness, and premature aging.
Drew from your previous comments tension and load would be training the “surplus fibers”?.
Thanks
Steven
hey Drew!!
thank s a lot for the advice! every second workout i m really stronger than the previous despite the soreness! i have followed your nutrition advice. also my libido has skyrocket!! i used to eat much less protein and even less saturated fat than your recomendations but now i feel like an animal!! thank s a lot Drew!! i hope my cholesterol is not going to kill me.. i look bigger in just 8 days (i m a mesomorphe and i ve just reenter on bodybuilding)
i have a question..
if the negative face is so important why not to concetrate only on the negative? for example why not lifting the weight in 1 sec and lower it in 10 sec? except the danger of speed is there any other probleme?
Drew you and your site are fantastic!!
i m waiting your next book!!
ps sorry for my english
I interpreted Jones comments as the adrenaline rush we may receive when in a perceived life or death situation. The only time I every worked within what felt like the “chemical” reserve was when ECA stacks were still legal — I wouldn’t recommend it.
I really like the negative emphasis training method, I gave it a try yesterday — free weight style. With the right load, it naturally took about 3 seconds to lift the weight (depending on the lift being made) and I really felt the punishment slowing down the negative and the turn-over.
GOOD STUFF!
Hi Drew,
Vanner thanks for the reply I now better understand Arthur’s comments in relation to what he meant by “chemical supercharging” it now makes more sense to me. Whilst we are training to high intensity it is not needed the adrenaline “chemical supercharging” that one could receive in life and death situations. Again I think that is the “too much” of anything in our daily lives can have an adverse effect.
Also Drew I am now better understanding what Arthur Jones meant by the Cause and Effect relationships of exercise “stimulation” and your suntan analogy makes that clearer.
It is a pity that more of the so-called fitness experts did not take the time to learn more about Cause and Effect.
Thanks
Steven
Drew,
Have you had a chance to interview Ryan Hall yet? I’m interested to know his thoughts on inroad, tension, and load, and how these variables might influence workout methods for older people (like me) who have no interest in bodybuilding but wish to remain strong as we age.
Thanks,
Griff
Griff,
Not yet. Ryan is busy with training and I’m trying to finish a book and prepare for a convention coming up next weekend and we haven’t been able to coordinate a time yet. I am also going to be interviewing Jim Flanagan and am in the process of conducting an e-mail interview with the lead engineer from MedX, Phil Sencil. It might not happen for another couple of weeks.
Hey Drew,
I may be mistaken but it seems that you agree with Ryan Hall that the inroad theory of growth stimulation is flawed and that it doesn’t explain accurately what is actually occurring physiologically when muscle hypertrophy is unleashed.
Still, I see you using the term “inroad” very often to this day.
Would it be fair to say that you use it more for praxctical purposes as a useful figure of speech, a handy metaphor, you know, rather than as an actual scientific concept?
I’m not saying that you are being “un-scientific”, of course.
Thank you,
Maigret
Hey Maigret,
Inroad is real thing, it is a measure of fatigue. The theory has to do with it’s relationship to hypertrophy.
I’m not sure I get the point.
Let’s say that it’s indeed true that hypertrophy is directly caused by microtrauma in the muscles. OK, fine. But what is the cause of microtrauma in the muscles? I’d say inroad of the muscles by way of strength training!
Then I don’t know how it’s flawed to say that inroad is the cause of hypertrophy.
For example, if I take a gun and kill someone by blowing their brains out, it would be nitpicking to say that no, it was not the bullet that I discharged that killed that person, but a sudden outburst of bleeding inside their brains. C’mon, that sudden hemorrhaging was the result of my firing the gun! It would be semantics to say that my firing the gun is not the cause of the guy’s death just because it is the indirect cause of it.
The way I see it:
inroad —> microtrauma —> hypetrophy
If that’s the case, inroad is definitely the cause, albeit indirect, of hypertrophy…
Or am I just ranting?
That’s not what inroad theory is, though. The inroad theory supposes that the degree of fatigue is the stimulus for muscular growth. The problem with this is that fatigue has many different causes which can vary with the type of exercise or activity and fatigue does not cause microtrauma by itself. For example, it is possible to produce very deep levels of fatigue in a muscle by loading it with very low resistance for a very long time but this may stimulate little or no increase in muscular strength and size because with such low tension there would be little microtrauma. It’s not just microtrauma, either, though, since it is possible to increase muscular strength and size using isometric methods with no eccentric phase.
Hey Drew, thank you for your explanation!