Increasing lean muscle mass - form following function

In a previous post commenting on the height/weight performance of tall gymnasts (viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4834), Coach Sommer responded (about the 6'1 gymnast Shatilov):

For his height, Shatilov's weight is fine as evidenced by his already high level of performance at a world class level. To lose weight at this stage in his career would almost certainly negatively effect his ring strength. If anything, by my evaluation of his physique, he may benefit from additional muscle mass, not less. However attempting such a gain in lean muscle mass may have a detrimental effect on his other events while only providing a marginal increase in his ring strength.

If form follows function, and Shatilov already has an elite level of strength on the rings - how would he gain additional lean mass? i.e. would he need to change his training regime to emphasise more traditional 'body building' protocols - like sets of 10 reps?

What precisely is the relationship between mass and strength? From a form-following-function perspective, surely working towards strength alone is the primary goal, and any increments in mass will be in what the body needs to adapt to the new strength demands?

Thanks

It would depend on what he is doing now. But to gain more muscle would probably involve something similar to what you said and more eccentric motions and times. Yes, as you build the strength, the body builds muscle to protect the joints. Look at the biceps of a bodybuilder and a ring specialist. The body builder has built a lot of muscle from eccentric motions and time under tension. A gymnast is built for similar reasons but the body makes the bicep grow to protect it during straight arm work. This is why a hands backward planche will cause your biceps to get bigger.

Basically, you work on the support structures that are the most susceptible to neuromuscular inhibition for the given trainee and desired sport movements. Since rings are all shoulder girdle, you would want to work on everything that attaches to the scapula. Lats don't matter as much as teres major, teres minor, traps and rhomboids. Chest (meaning pec major) doesn't matter as much as serratus anterior, coracobrachialis and subscapularis.

There is always something of a bidirectional relationship between form and function: Form will always reflect the functionality of the body, and direct changes to the body's form that improve those parts responsible for a given function will improve that function. In other words, carefully selected assistance work for specific muscle groups that are key limiting factors in a given sport or even a single movement will pay big dividends. These muscle groups are usually very small and are not prime movers. Prime movers are incredibly powerful, and it is usually the smaller muscles that stabilize the scapula and the head of the upper arm in the shoulder socket (the shoulder socket is actually a part of the scapula, that's something most people don't seem to realize) that are the limiting muscles. If the prime mover exerts more force on the upper arm bone than those stabilizing muscles can resist, the prime mover will be inhibited so that it can not exceed the amount of force those smaller muscles can handle. To exceed that force would cause tears, which is how and why people usually mess their shoulders up.

slizzardman said:

Basically, you work on the support structures that are the most susceptible to neuromuscular inhibition for the given trainee and desired sport movements. Since rings are all shoulder girdle, you would want to work on everything that attaches to the scapula. Lats don't matter as much as teres major, teres minor, traps and rhomboids. Chest (meaning pec major) doesn't matter as much as serratus anterior, coracobrachialis and subscapularis.

There is always something of a bidirectional relationship between form and function: Form will always reflect the functionality of the body, and direct changes to the body's form that improve those parts responsible for a given function will improve that function. In other words, carefully selected assistance work for specific muscle groups that are key limiting factors in a given sport or even a single movement will pay big dividends. These muscle groups are usually very small and are not prime movers. Prime movers are incredibly powerful, and it is usually the smaller muscles that stabilize the scapula and the head of the upper arm in the shoulder socket (the shoulder socket is actually a part of the scapula, that's something most people don't seem to realize) that are the limiting muscles. If the prime mover exerts more force on the upper arm bone than those stabilizing muscles can resist, the prime mover will be inhibited so that it can not exceed the amount of force those smaller muscles can handle. To exceed that force would cause tears, which is how and why people usually mess their shoulders up.

THIS IS KEY, PEOPLE!!

Poppy said:

In a previous post commenting on the height/weight performance of tall gymnasts (viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4834), Coach Sommer responded (about the 6'1 gymnast Shatilov):

For his height, Shatilov's weight is fine as evidenced by his already high level of performance at a world class level. To lose weight at this stage in his career would almost certainly negatively effect his ring strength. If anything, by my evaluation of his physique, he may benefit from additional muscle mass, not less. However attempting such a gain in lean muscle mass may have a detrimental effect on his other events while only providing a marginal increase in his ring strength.

If form follows function, and Shatilov already has an elite level of strength on the rings - how would he gain additional lean mass? i.e. would he need to change his training regime to emphasise more traditional 'body building' protocols - like sets of 10 reps?

What precisely is the relationship between mass and strength? From a form-following-function perspective, surely working towards strength alone is the primary goal, and any increments in mass will be in what the body needs to adapt to the new strength demands?

Thanks

No, to gain more mass he would have to eat more, and provide an adequate stimulus for his muscles to adapt to. That can be anywhere from about 1-8 or so reps, isometric holds, eccentrics, etc.

Mass is correlated to strength because of cross sectional area (CSA) of the muscle is the skeletal factor of total strength while neurologically you have other various factors affecting strength generation.

Yes, strength is primary goal, and increments in mass are imposed depending on how much they are needed to perform specific exercises.

PHILIP said:

It would depend on what he is doing now. But to gain more muscle would probably involve something similar to what you said and more eccentric motions and times. Yes, as you build the strength, the body builds muscle to protect the joints. Look at the biceps of a bodybuilder and a ring specialist. The body builder has built a lot of muscle from eccentric motions and time under tension. A gymnast is built for similar reasons but the body makes the bicep grow to protect it during straight arm work. This is why a hands backward planche will cause your biceps to get bigger.

This is slightly incorrect. The body does not understand the whys of stress we put on it. It understands stimulus.

Planche with hands backwards is a stimulus on the biceps in a passive insufficient position (e.g. the muscle is lengthened to near the end of its force-length curve) such that the contraction + time under tension effect is the stimulus required for muscular hypertrophy.

The body does not understand there is a joint to protect and thus it must strengthen and hypertrophy the muscle.

slizzardman said:

Basically, you work on the support structures that are the most susceptible to neuromuscular inhibition for the given trainee and desired sport movements. Since rings are all shoulder girdle, you would want to work on everything that attaches to the scapula. Lats don't matter as much as teres major, teres minor, traps and rhomboids. Chest (meaning pec major) doesn't matter as much as serratus anterior, coracobrachialis and subscapularis.

There is always something of a bidirectional relationship between form and function: Form will always reflect the functionality of the body, and direct changes to the body's form that improve those parts responsible for a given function will improve that function. In other words, carefully selected assistance work for specific muscle groups that are key limiting factors in a given sport or even a single movement will pay big dividends. These muscle groups are usually very small and are not prime movers. Prime movers are incredibly powerful, and it is usually the smaller muscles that stabilize the scapula and the head of the upper arm in the shoulder socket (the shoulder socket is actually a part of the scapula, that's something most people don't seem to realize) that are the limiting muscles. If the prime mover exerts more force on the upper arm bone than those stabilizing muscles can resist, the prime mover will be inhibited so that it can not exceed the amount of force those smaller muscles can handle. To exceed that force would cause tears, which is how and why people usually mess their shoulders up.

Errrr, while this is true it doesn't really pertain to the OP's questions...

I am not sure that is correct. This is a different kind of mass gain than something from a bicep curl or a even a pull up. I have also heard otherwise from other sources and seen it in trainees.

PHILIP said:

I am not sure that is correct. This is a different kind of mass gain than something from a bicep curl or a even a pull up. I have also heard otherwise from other sources and seen it in trainees.

Typically, end range of motion isometrics/exercises fatigue the muscles, stabilizers, and connective tissues well as opposed to range of motion movements such as the ones you mentioned which often don't target stabilizers or connective tissues as well.

The development of the muscles, stabilizers, and connective tissues in end range movements is typically more dense around the joints whereas depending on the repetitions of full range of motion movements you may get different types of hypertrophy in those issues.

Again, form follows function... and stress follows adaptation... but the body doesn't differentiate between how the stress is being applied. They are different stressors which cause somewhat different effects even though they target more or less the same area or groups of muscles. It's just like changing a stimulus from high reps to lower reps to get more "myofibril" hypertrophy as opposed to "sarcoplasmic"

That is quite interesting. This is actually something I learned off Ido. In order to protect the elbow, the bicep has to grow. Given how many other adaptations the human body develops, I would be surprised if it wasn't true. I will be sure to ask about it when I see him.

I think you're confusing cause and effect here.

The biceps doesn't grow because the body thinks it needs to protect the elbow.

The biceps grows because straight arm work puts a lot of stress on the biceps/elbow.

Stress stimulus -> adaptation

Exactly. Which produces a different kind of hypertrophy.This is what I am getting at. I think the description was understood in a different way than I was explaining.

What specific kind of hypertrophy are you referring to? There are really only two types.

And different kind of hypertrophy as opposed to what?

You are taking it very literally my friend. I mean a kind that ends up going closer to the joint. I weightlifted for years but when I took up gymnastics again, the bicep went down into the elbow it seemed.

PHILIP said:

You are taking it very literally my friend. I mean a kind that ends up going closer to the joint. I weightlifted for years but when I took up gymnastics again, the bicep went down into the elbow it seemed.

Ah, well, that's true then.

Studies have shown that muscle hypertrophy closer to the joint that is being acted upon first during movement or initiation of muscle use.

Hence why the "pecs" tend to hypertrophy closer to the shoulder. In this case, yes, the hypertrophy will be closer and more specific to the elbows.

You can't change the shape of your muscles. It is genetically dictated. They can hypertrophy or atrophy, but genetic shape remains the same. The length of your tendons also help determine whether you have short or long muscle bellies.

Poppy said:

If form follows function, and Shatilov already has an elite level of strength on the rings - how would he gain additional lean mass? i.e. would he need to change his training regime to emphasise more traditional 'body building' protocols - like sets of 10 reps?

What precisely is the relationship between mass and strength? From a form-following-function perspective, surely working towards strength alone is the primary goal, and any increments in mass will be in what the body needs to adapt to the new strength demands?

Thanks

Shatilov doesn't have elite level strength on rings, he has elite all around, especialy floor. His ring strength is impresive for all-arounder and for his tallness.

braindx said:

It's just like changing a stimulus from high reps to lower reps to get more "myofibril" hypertrophy as opposed to "sarcoplasmic"

That is a myth :wink: Pavel misinterpret scientific studies...

dnj23 said:

You can't change the shape of your muscles. It is genetically dictated. They can hypertrophy or atrophy, but genetic shape remains the same. The length of your tendons also help determine whether you have short or long muscle bellies.

Not sure this is true - what muscles in which the fibres does not run all the way from one end to the other? (ei. abs) However, I do agree, that this is not the reason for some people having bigger guns near the elbow. That is properly caused be the tendon length end thickness and hyperstrophy of the brachialis and brachioradialis...

True

Well developed bodybuilders, despite their high degree of muscularity, can be known for their shortcomings, ex. High biceps, high calves, high lats - all in terms of an aesthetic standpoint. Most authorites will agree that its due to genetic tendon length and cannot be overcome with training.

I think most of you guys try to overcomplicate the issue of hypertrophy, that it requires some exotic protocol to follow. It really doesn't. Compound movements with progressive resistance, along with a sensible diet and training volume will suffice. What most people don't realize is that it takes years to build a great body, and the average Joe does not have the genetic capability of looking anywhere near as big as a pro, drugs or no drugs. I understand that you can do some things in your training I.e. rep with heavier weight for more cns stimulation, higher reps moderate weight for hypertrophy etc, but this isn't the reason why your long sought efforts for a pro card hasn't come or you're not in a world's powerlifting championship yet. It is cliche to blame it on genetics, and I don't mean to suggest it as a lazy excuse or to quit something you love doing, but the sooner you realize how it really is of utmost importance your attitude and patience for training will be in its proper perspective.

Dr. Durden said:

dnj23 said:

You can't change the shape of your muscles. It is genetically dictated. They can hypertrophy or atrophy, but genetic shape remains the same. The length of your tendons also help determine whether you have short or long muscle bellies.

Not sure this is true - what muscles in which the fibres does not run all the way from one end to the other? (ei. abs) However, I do agree, that this is not the reason for some people having bigger guns near the elbow. That is properly caused be the tendon length end thickness and hyperstrophy of the brachialis and brachioradialis...

True

Almost every muscle in the body has multiple muscle fibers in sequence. They have been shown to migrate within the muscle when exposed to certain types of stress, which physically makes the muscle longer. That is not even getting into hyperplasia. It can happen. It is also known that tendons can shorten and lengthen 'permanently' to a certain degree, we see that happen to a certain extent with some overuse dysfunctions on a regular basis.

Having said that, a large part of muscle shape is genetically determined. You may be able to alter length to some degree, perhaps even a significant degree with dedicated effort, I don't know. You won't be able to straighten out uneven abs or whatever, that's the kind of thing that is 100% genetic as far as I am aware. Same goes for tendon attachment locations on the bones.

slizzardman said:

These muscle groups are usually very small and are not prime movers. Prime movers are incredibly powerful, and it is usually the smaller muscles that stabilize the scapula and the head of the upper arm in the shoulder socket (the shoulder socket is actually a part of the scapula, that's something most people don't seem to realize) that are the limiting muscles. If the prime mover exerts more force on the upper arm bone than those stabilizing muscles can resist, the prime mover will be inhibited so that it can not exceed the amount of force those smaller muscles can handle. To exceed that force would cause tears, which is how and why people usually mess their shoulders up.

What kind of exercises do you recommend to strengthen this muscles??

It depends on the muscles. In the shoulders, I am still experimenting with some stuff but there are always the old standbys!

standing and side lying external rotations, chest expanders, Trap 3 lifts, scapular retraction rows, serratus push ups/pull ups/dip shrugs. Chin ups and pull up variations also help a lot when you focus on scapular retraction.

Ring supports and ring handstands always help too. Also, side lying pallof press on a bench for rear delts.

I am sure there will be a ton of additions to this list by others, but those are my favorites currently. I would also suggest using force in two different vectors simultaneously.

Slizzardman, is the one you're talking about?

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=6156

That thread has the absolute minimum that should be done, those are the direct pre-requisites for the FSP and they most certainly build a lot of strength in the stabilizers.

One thing to keep in mind with rings handstands is that the longer the rings are the more effective the exercise will be.

A possible workaround that I have considered is creating a ring mount system that has two linear bearings, in the x and y directions. This would essentially simulate ring straps of infinite length and would be incomparably ideal for building stabilization since there would literally be no fixed point at all. I can imagine that this would probably be impossible to use without first training on long rings, but I won't know without beta-testing the idea. Construction of a prototype may be difficult.

Slizz and his ideas, i wonder how that would work.

If you can find a couple of used x-y tables, the type they use on milling machines, i've seen these kind of systems where there is no worm drive, the runner slides on a polished steel rod, this is what you need.

Of course the question with this is cost, but compared to the ridiculous cost of most exercise equipment, it couldn't be any worse.

I'm not sure how it would respond to being upside down but that's what i'd start from, it might only be a 12 inch square of movement but would prove the point.

That's a good idea, the drill press. I was thinking of basically making something similar, using pipes and pulleys.