There are a lot of things we need to define when we examine studies. Did anyone take measurements during and after the experiment? So what did they use to determine if any muscle size was gained?
"Conclusion: The cells in the men's leg muscles only started to grow when the men had become used to the training stimuli. Hypertrophy in the muscle tissue only started to occur once the men did not have sore muscles after working out, and once their creatine kinase levels were not spiralling high.
Of course strength training stimulates muscle growth, the Brazilians concluded. But not if the stimulus is too intense."
They had 10 men who hadn't done any lifting in the previous 6 months. How on earth do they represent bodybuilders? The people doing the study concluded that gains were made ONLY after becoming used to the training.
Surely all bodybuilders are used to training? In fact, the vast majority of people lifting weights are NOT growing. Why is this so? Why doesn't everyone grow who trains with resistance? A good question.
If we look at hypertrophy from a logical point of view we see that it occurs only if the body does something unusual and with enough intensity or duration or both.
All gym owners and personal trainers know that you have to go easy on beginners in the gym. I find the study interesting but it does not refute my claims.
I state that an intermediate bodybuilder who trains hard several times a week will experience hypertrophy if he can generate sufficient DOMS in his target muscles.
When a study is done with such bodybuilders I will accept the results. My own experience is that it is difficult to generate DOMS in some muscles such as biceps.
So, if you can get your biceps sore then they should grow about 1/10 of an inch by the next day. Yes, some of the size is inflammation but there is hypertrophy because
the size gains are accompanied with strength gains over a period of say a month.
Did you purchase the study and read it in full?
Because it was not detailed how they were able to measure hypertrophy doesn't mean it didn't happen? They did explain how muscle damage was measured. And measurements are not a very good indication of muscle hypertrophy. I increase the size of my thighs over night just by consuming a lot of carbs and water.
"Why doesn't everyone grow as a result of resistance training?" Of course they do but at wildly different rates and levels. Dr. Walzak told me that one reaches the upper limits of his natural genetic potential after about three years of serious training and eating with about 80% of those gains coming within the first year (talking about an adult).
Why do some people get a very dark tan from the sun and others do not? It's all about one's genetic predisposition. Jones stated this clearly. No amount of hormones, peptides and DOMS will change that. The human body does not want to carry a lot of muscle and given the slightest excuse will get rid of it. Muscle, even at rest, requires a lot of metabolic support: blood supply, nutrients, etc. Muscle is a metabolic cost to the body. Fat is just the opposite. Stored energy. Your body likes stored energy and will store as much as it can even at the expense of no longer resembling a human form. Both are proven clearly in real life.
And I don't know if an "unusual" training stimulus is always necessary for muscle hypertrophy. I am amazed at the muscular size my nephew has put on in the last five years. Especially in the quads, arms and shoulders -- and he has never picked up a barbell in his life. He just entered puberty and ate more.
One of Jiu-Jitsu instructors, Reagan Machado, put on 30 lbs of muscle mass while in his mid twenties just by going off the primary fruit based diet espoused by the Gracies when he moved to the US and started eating more meat.
You demand proof that DOMS is not a necessary requirement to muscle hypertrophy but have yet to provide proof of your own. This study did present evidence that DOMS is a stage preceding muscle adaptation albeit in nonbodybuilders but I see no reason why this would not also apply to more advance trainees. It's like when I did work with my hands. I would wear away the skin first, which caused some pain and discomfort, the soreness and broken down phase (a form of DOMS?), until a callous would build up and I would no longer experience discomfort and my callouses would grow more pronounce as I continued working with my hands.
And, don't forget, you did try to prove your DOMS theory in the real world with practical application and have always failed. You have presented the theory, the onus is on you to prove it and not on others to disprove it.
Very happy to have you back on this board again.
