Bodybuilding.net - Bodybuilding Forum

Darkhorse · #11 03-27-2006, 07:41 PM

I personally think the fascia stretching is best utilized for the recovery aspects. However, my quads have taken off in growth since doing the fascia stretching.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric

This was the same thing is posted all over the place, and I think it is the initial post at the link I provided at Fortified Iron.

I just posted it to raise my post count.

Darkhorse · #12 03-27-2006, 07:53 PM

Finally, the extreme stretch. IMO, this is DC's major trump card over HST. I've brought up the effects of this on the thread before; in short, this would be the equivalent of adding very short high-load negative isolation movements into your 10s, and then making sure you keep progressing through the end of your HST program. These stretches, like introducing 5RM+ negatives early into your workout, overrides the regular sets the primary factor in creating sarcomere hypertrophy for many bodyparts. And because they create such disruption and stay ahead of RBE, they also override the declining load increments of the routine. As long as you can increase the stretch week-to-week (half of DC's stretches are angle or load-based, the other half involve increasing stretching time, which isn't as efficient), this effect on the training is huge. It's also no surprise that many trainees who don't as well under DC as Dante predicts, underuse this technique. It's supremely painful, but the lengthy stretch times is necessary to activate the golgi tendon's stretch reflex.

EricT · #13 03-28-2006, 07:20 AM

More of the same old same old. Ha, ha. 0311 is playing with me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 0311

I just posted it to raise my post count.

LOL, wouldn't want to see you fall behind! But I'm going to take that as you egging me on

especially being as that you haven't adressed any of my arguments!

Quote:

Originally Posted by 0311

but the lengthy stretch times is necessary to activate the golgi tendon's stretch reflex.

Are you kidding? Who came up with that? The stretch reflex is activated immediately once you reach a certain threshold. If you don't go past that point, and the nervous system "senses" that the stretch is not actually dangerous, the the reflex relaxes. This is the traditional way to do static stretches. It's not about "activating" the reflex. It seems to me it's about sustaining it, producing tension. Which, to me, means, basically, going to the point of damage, the whole point of bag theory, which I have been arguing against the validity of.

All of this is just people saying something, which of course doesn't make it true. Proving it makes it true (or at least makes it look true).

As I said before, I am not debating whether the stretching is valid. I am debating the mechanism. Why? One, I don't like it when people present theories as proven fact. Two, the way the stretching is presented, and especially the idea of "increasing" the stretch week to week, can potentially cause more than "microtrauma".

Look, when I started doing this, I went against my instinct. What I had learned about stretching the hard way. Dante, or any of these other guys, didn't invent forced stretching. It's somewhat mediated by the muscles being warm and whatnot (which is always necessary in stretching) but one has to assume that this damage is resulting in a desirable remodeling of tissues and not in stiffening and formation of scar tissue setting you up for a torn muscle later on. We all know good and well that a future injury can be potentiated by something we do now.

If anything, a week off like in the Wilson article, is a good thing. But I'm not saying I have the answers, or even that I can find them. I still have a lot of reading to do and I have to try to understand it.

Here is a little of what I'm talking about:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurtz

There are two mechanisms for the origin of gradual-onset injuries. The first, obvious to most athletes, is when tissues stressed by exercises do not have enough time or nutrition to rebuild between workouts and so are gradually torn down to the point at which they come apart. The result—a muscle, a tendon, a ligament, or a joint cartilage is torn, or a bone is broken.

The second mechanism is less obvious because the stressed tissues are supplied well with nutrition and have enough rest time to rebuild themselves or even grow bigger: the loads are too great or occur too often for new tissues to mature. Maturation of tissues involves orientation of collagen fibers along the lines of mechanical stress and production of enough of a matrix (ground substance) to preserve the normal collagen-to-matrix ratio and to prevent excessive bonding of collagen fibers (Hertling and Kessler 1996).

Not allowing new tissues to mature makes them rigid, not extensible, so they do not damp the forces applied to them by extending and then returning to their original shape. They either break down or pass on these nonattenuated forces to other tissues. For example, increased stiffness of a tendon (fibrosis) increases the strain on its attachment to the bone, leading to inflammation and eventual separation from the bone. In the case of increased stiffness of bone (sclerosis) under joint cartilage, the cartilage is excessively stressed by loading because it lies between stiffer-than-normal bones—between a rock and a hard place. (Bone hypertrophies quicker than joint cartilage in response to loading because bone has a good blood supply and cartilage does not.)

Gradual-onset injury initially announces itself by intermittent dull pain not severe enough to stop the athlete from exercising. If the athlete ignores this light pain the injury is aggravated and the pain is felt during and continuously after the exercise. If further ignored the injury progresses to an acute injury that may require an operation and may end an athletic career.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 0311

I personally think the fascia stretching is best utilized for the recovery aspects.

I tend to agree. I am, however, beginning not to like the term "fascia stretching" for reasons stated above. Faster recovery can, after all, lead to more muscle growth over a given period of time. But the faster recovery caused by stretching, as I understand it, has nothing to do with fascia remodeling.

Quote:

There's some speculation about stretching activating gene expression with satellite cells.

Yes. And other speculations.

EricT · #14 03-28-2006, 08:42 AM

Some stuff from the "Stretching RoundTable at T-Nation:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alesi

...stretching of the parallel elastic components (PEC) immediately after resistance training increases muscle hypertrophy by stretching the limiting “sheaths” that encapsulate the muscle belly. In protective response to this unstable change, the stretched muscle sheets trigger an increase in protein splitting, muscle cell division, and collagen breakdown and repair. The result is hypertrophy or "thickening" for survival.

Then he goes on to say this:

Quote:

It's also a myth that ballistic stretching is dangerous. There's no such thing as an unsafe stretch, only an unsafe way of executing any movement! Russian research and the work of Matveyev suggests that three to five sets of 8 to 12 gradually increasing ballistic reps can be very effective, especially in sports specific applications.

Ballistic stretching IS dangerous. I don't know whether to take him seriously in regards to stretching. The study he described incorporated dynamic stretches, which can be useful and done safely. He clearly doesn't know the difference between the two.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catanzaro

Bigger muscles? Perhaps. But stronger? I say no way! In my stretching article for T-mag, I mentioned two methods of aggressive stretching advocated by John Parrillo and Torbjorn Akerfeldt where the object is to expand the fascial compartment thus allowing greater room for growth. The classic bird study you've probably heard about also proves that stretching may have some merit for muscle growth.
Now, as far as strength is concerned, that’s a whole 'nother story! Sure, dynamic stretching may increase strength temporarily, but static stretching will definitely weaken muscle. The proposed theories of force decrement with stretching (which breaks down to roughly 60% neural and 40% muscular/contractile) include decreased motor neuron excitability, increased tendon slack, decreased stiffness, and altered actin-myosin position.

As the length of the muscle increases, stiffness decreases. As stiffness decreases, force decreases, which means…drum roll please…strength decreases!

More flexibility in some parts of the body can increase your lifts by producing favorable biomechanics. For example, flexible hip-flexors in the full squat. Too much flexibility, on the other hand, in certain parts of the body, can make you weaker.

Darkhorse · #15 03-28-2006, 04:42 PM

I like the term loaded stretches. Nice and clean.

Since I've done them, the immediate effect is a good sized muscle pump, the same kind as doing a 20 rep set. Now, I can see the stretches causing the muscle to be engorged with blood, shuttling nutrients, aminos, ect. enabling the muscle to heal faster and possibly grow bigger. That's my take during my experience with them. I think DC advocates it solely on the recovery aspect..At least that's what I've read into some of the things he posts.

Quote:

but the lengthy stretch times is necessary to activate the golgi tendon's stretch reflex.

I have no idea what the hell all this stuff is. It's a post I found from Viscious over at the HST board. He's another biology minded fellow over there. Of course, as you know, if I find anything related to stretching, I will post it in this thread. I don't think I could answer your questions any better than throwing out my uninformed opinions and observations really.

So everythign I post here is basically stuff I happen upon during another brutal 12 hour night shift extravaganza.

I'll email a tech from John Parillo later to inquire about the stretches. Unlike DC, he advocates [I think] 30 seconds worth vs. 1 minute.

Darkhorse · #16 03-28-2006, 04:47 PM

If you have some time, you may want to post your research on the intensemuscle board. I'm sure they'll be much better suited to rebuttles..Just let me know cause it's interesting to see what they'd say.

EricT · #17 03-28-2006, 07:13 PM

No, thanks, I've made my peace with it and tired myself out on the subject. Besides:

Quote:

Originally Posted by 0311

I like the term loaded stretches. Nice and clean.

Since I've done them, the immediate effect is a good sized muscle pump, the same kind as doing a 20 rep set. Now, I can see the stretches causing the muscle to be engorged with blood, shuttling nutrients, aminos, ect. enabling the muscle to heal faster and possibly grow bigger. That's my take during my experience with them. I think DC advocates it solely on the recovery aspect..At least that's what I've read into some of the things he posts.

That sounds good to me, and, as you know, I'm not a biologist

.

Darkhorse · #18 03-28-2006, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric3237

That sounds good to me, and, as you know, I'm not a biologist

.

Most definately..Like I've said, not being racist, but, "I'll eat the rice out of a dead Japs ass if it gains me a pound!" :240:

Bodybuilding.net - Bodybuilding Forum

Fascia Stretching and Muscle Memory