question on muscle fiber recruitment

assume we give different muscle fibers a rep range that fully exhaust them; we'll talk about the rep range 10-12 and 13-15...i do a set and fail at 11 reps--i then drop the weight and continue at a lighter weight (drop set).  would this adequately fatigue the more endurable muscle fiber of 13-15 reps or would the time from dropping heavier weight and selecting the lighter weight create an aerobic condition, allowing those 13-15 fibers recuperate thereby negating any training effect on these fibers?

I'd imagine that this recuperation effect would be less so as the rep ranges drop into heavier weight and thus less endurable muscle fibers.

Every rep you do, you recruit fibers in the same order. Type I, then IIA, then IIB. This happens in a about a split second if neccesary. I mention it because you are hitting all your fibers if your intensity is high enough. So doing higher reps and lower reps and lower reps a like will use them all.

Ask the folks I trained at camp this weekend if they used all their muscle fibers during that leg workout. LOL. ;)

Yes sir...so sean are you saying high low low on rep set scheme?

You just did high high high at least i think

Nick the overall volume is all you need to worry about.  I have been trying to figure out the most effective reps x sets sceme and at what intensity.  So far I've got as far as      4x10 being the most optimal set rep sceme.  But I have been thinking about how to extend the sets without dropping intensity for the next set.  Drops sets definatly increase the overall volume for one set... but can you continue using the same weight for the next sets?  At the end of the workout, have you lifted more weight (volume) than if you did straight sets of 10??  I challange you to calculate volume with the drop sets one week (and include rest periods and overall workout time) then calculate the same workout with a straight sets 4x10 and see what the difference is.  Its like a death match... whoever comes out with more volume is the winner!

just an addition of a likely false pre-tense

FEEL-we all have some weight on every lift that allows a certain number of reps and thus a specific muscle fiber...would it hold to reason that the weight that allowed the feeling of the most powerful concentric contraction signal the dominant muscle fiber type of that particular muscle?  if this is true, wouldn't it take more volume in this rep range to adequately fatigue and train that muscle? and so as not to neglect the other fiber types, different rep ranges would be used sparingly? if something like a drop set wouldn't allow the muscle to recover briefly, you're overall energy expenditure of the workout would be less and allowed to bank towards recovery.  i also understand that what feels best on a squat will typically be less reps that what feels good on a leg ext.  don't know how to account for this.

again, perhaps totally false

I completly understand what you are saying about the 10x100 being different than 100x10, that's why I mentoned how long it takes to complete the workout, and having the ability to keep doing the same amount of reps with the same, if not more intensity.  Wouldn't you say that recovery time after a drop set is much more than it is for a straight set? In order to not be in the gym for hours at a time increasing volume... which if you've been training long enough and constantly increase volume you'd be in the gym forever. This is where  becoming stronger increases volume... you can continue to do the same sets and reps all the time and still increase volume by increasing the weight.  I also understand that calculating volume is completely different with flyes and presses, but the flyes may be recruiting more chest fibers... so in that case its almost impossibe to translate volume.  To make calculating volume a bit easier, only use it for you compound lifts.  I agree with sean about the fiber recruitment, if you lift in the hypertrophy rep ranges you will have adiquatly hit all the muscle fibers.  Its very complicated and I'm sure I will never quite "get it"

I challange everyone to figure out the most time efficient way to lift with the most amount of volume and no decrease in weight (intensity) Once someone gets that down to a science training effeciency will be most effictive.  Also, I'm sure there are variables such as training age, gender, and fiber types to put into the equation.... as far as i know none of this has ever been studied in a controled test.

i've done that before the workout, trying to guess optimal volume and setting my workouts accordingly.  i soon found that 20lbs for 20 reps was the most volume i could do for bicep curls, until joe set me right again pointing out that the differences in energy production system and fiber type etc. should be taken into account.

quick comment on overall intensity dropping and recovery of drop sets: obviously there is an interplay between volume and intensity in reference to hypertrophy--what are your thoughts on the idea that though the first set of 4 may be 10 reps to failure, the second likely 9, then 8, then 7.  while intensity (weight) is equal, volume drops considerably unless the sets are not taken to failure or extended sets are employed via forced reps for example or the weight is dropped each set.  i understand the definition of intensity but somewhere overall work (volume) would have a role in the training of a muscle.  You may be assuming that one is not taking sets to failure or they allow their reps to drop. 

of course the more work done in a set, the longer the recovery period would be...but isn't one rule of hypertrophy type training that full recovery of a muscle is not only unnessasary but also less effective than a relatively shorter rest period?  this is to be taken in account with other factors such as periodization and the other types of training needed for optimal results. also, couldn't this effect be circumvented by the structure of the workout, heavier compound movements first and progressively lighter lifts, requiring less recuperation time anyway?

I think that in looking for a steadfast rule in everything is actually rather pointless...too many variables.  like sean usually comments, mix it up.  it is interesting to try and come close to optimal though.

also austin,

if i'm not misunderstanding, i don't think that you're saying that extended sets are a negative, rather that they should be taken into account of the overall scheme of the workout. i don't want to put you on a spot that you're not actually seated.

in the entire volume/intensity.  like i mentioned, they both have a role in hypertrophy.  in this respect i think it needs some intrepretation: i think were both basing these ideas written on the topic of sports preformance in which volume is utilized as a conditioning mechanism.  can hypertrophy really be said to be performance...definately there is correlation between the two that can be translated both ways. so what becomes more apt to induce results in our sport of choice, the volume of an entire workout or the work of a singular set? more being bold because all of these aspects inter-relate.

o ya, last thing.

you kind of echoed something that sean said a while back about a strict linear model lends itself to injury--just as you said that by ever increasing the volume would eventually result in endless workouts, ever increasing intensity would lead to impossible loads.  that's why i started to figure that weekly variations as they fell within a non-linearized periodization model could be most practically done by the inclusion of extended sets whether be drop sets, forced, rest/pause, what have you.

other variables such as cross recuperation between lifts like squat and dead would account for the creation of numerous workouts.  mine come out to about 12.  but at the time that a workout is repeated, weights would definately move up.  this cycled with a 3-4 day split would be prone to keeping the weight within injury free ranges before the dieting season began.

the other big hypertrophy variable we have forgotten here besides volume and intensity is change to a workout. the way i understand it is that a change would illicit positive change on a plane equal to increased volume or intensity (probably as long as the load was similar)  this would kind of make RPE a huge factor in planning for progress

I am not saying that any particualr way of training is wrong or right, I am just bringing up topics and playing devils advicate a bit.  I honeslty dont know what is right... I think drop sets can be used as variation at the end of the last set of exercises, but I'm not sold if its good on every set.  I think even with the non-linear periodization that volume over the long run needs to increase in a linear fashon. obviously the body needs rest in order to recouperate, but like i said, overall the volume line needs to progress upward.  I still believe the GAS model needs to be used, linearly or non.  Wether it be every 3 weeks every 2 weeks bi weekly or every 4-6 weeks.  All hypertrophy is, is supercopensation so we must create enough of a stiumlus to elicit that response.

Keeping in mind that a highly trained person can adapt to a program in 1-2 weeks, thus making NLP a great way to keep creating new stimulus.

 Another thought, is there a certian set and rep difference from one bodypart to the next?

Would legs be a better with 4x15 as opposed the 4x10 but could the opposite be true for chest? 

exactly. tradionally hamstrings, for example, are very fast twitch where as calves are typically slow twitch.  but how do you know if that applies to you?  that's what i was saying about feel.  would that idea make sense?  i read an old article of arthur jones saying that he'd take a person's 90%1rm and see how many times they could do it: the fewer reps, the more fast twitch and visa versa.  but i think that this would not really account for every exercise, how would you find the 1rm of your forearm for example.  but this still leads to rep range questions.  if your muscle fiber respond best to 8-10 reps, but there are still those 15 rep fibers laying dormant and ready to be used, even if at fraction of the volume of the 8-10s...

It is very complecated, and I'd bet there is a series of tests an individual could perfrom to determine their best rep range for each muscle.  To complecate the situation even further we would need to re-test the person from time to time becasue as their training age gets older their neurlogical efficiency becomes better.  I would assume someone with more neurlogical efficiency would have a different rep range someone who is inefficient. 

I don't believe Arthur Jones took into accout for the neurological efficiency.  A person who is efficient will be able to lift the 90% 1RM 2 times, but someone who is neurlogically inefficient would be able to complete 3-4 reps.  Another test that can be perfromed is a vertical jump compared to an approch jump.  If the person jumps markedly highe with the approach they are considered neurologicaly inefficient.  All of our (cooper speed-strenght school) athletes can jump much higer on their approach than standing. All of our veterans are the same  if not higher on the standing vs. the approach.

Having said all that, I agree with Arthur Jones that muscle fiber type will play a role in determining a proper rep range, but that is only after determining the neurological efficiency of an individual.

Another devils advocate question... how much are those 15-20 rep fibers really going to hypertrophy?  I understand that we are looking for the max hypertrophy with all fibers, but should we focus too much on those small percentage fibers and possibly neglect the larger percentage fibers? Let's say we do want to hypertrophy those slow fibers, how frequently do they need to be trained for hypertrophy? 

Oh, and one more thing.  If you keep your rest periods to under 1.5mins (preferably 1min) I'd bet that by your 3rd and 4th sets that you have recruited and exhausted all the muscle fiber in that muslce group.