Fascia stretching and muscle growth: Flimsy evidence in support

[natron]

Sorry for the outburst.

He's made some crazy claims with gains and fat loss with athletes. However keep in mind there may be circumstances that aren't exactly "normal". It's not like he took Jay Cutler and had him put on 29 lbs of mass in a month during a bulk. It was probably some athlete that let his diet go to shit during season, lost mass as well, and then Poliquin got his hands on him and got his diet, training, and supplementation back in order and BAM. Add to that that the athlete probably is well conditioned (which IMO helps with faster results) and also may have good genetics.

I've had some things happen to me that were similar and I've produced insane before and after pics in a matter of 6 weeks. In fact for shits and giggles, this fat loss occurred in just 6 weeks:

No worries, and nice cut by the way! Impressive.

ASll these guys have there ups and downs, Lyle Mcdonald is another fine example, lots of his shit is brilliant, other shit is just that.

My stance is to gain knowledge and experience, and be able to employ the best techniques from each where applicable.

[Dr Pangloss]

What about reports from Poliquin on fascia stretching massage increasing size...especially places like the forearms? He states that people that have trains for much longer see more benefit.

I dont read baseless assertion. i read science. i dont give a damn about someone's anecdotal knowledge either.

there is so much delusion and bias in anecdotal knowledge that it's almost worthless.

[Dr Pangloss]

[quote=Frosty;648279]This is where I start to get slightly irritated.

Let me put it this way--I will listen to a coach that has encyclopedic knowledge and an incredible track record with producing results over people that look at research ANY day. I get sick of hearing people that read research say all this shit when the literature is usually limited for what we want to do, and you have people out there with not only the education, but broad knowledge of many fields as well as extraordinary amounts of experience AND producing results, and we just say they're full of shit because of "research" or whatever the hell you want to say.

I'm not buying it. That's horse shit.[/quote]

The bold is exactly why you are a moron frosty.

Remember this: i dont post for you, because your mind is soft and lacks the discipline to remain evidence-based.

[Frosty]

You're welcome to remain years behind while waiting for the research to come out on the things coaches are already finding to work Good luck with that.

[natron]

You're welcome to remain years behind while waiting for the research to come out on the things coaches are already finding to work Good luck with that.

Flawed logic IMO. Science is what helps us continue to progress. Scientific thinking as well, is what developes the most effective training/cardio/drug/supplement/diet programs.

Not gain 1" in a day muscletech ads

[Dr Pangloss]

You're welcome to remain years behind while waiting for the research to come out on the things coaches are already finding to work Good luck with that.

you're welcome to wallow in your ignorance and make-believe.

This forum is called "bodybuilding science," and if you dont like the rigor of science, stay in your little gnc world. In fact, i'm quite happy to have used car-salesmen with no formal scientific training not participate in my threads at all.

Your input isnt worth shit. Never has been. Never will be.

[Dr Pangloss]

Some of you brighter people who dont find my analysis satisfying might try and find more evidence in support of the role of the fascia in restricting muscle growth, or more evidence that engorging muscles with blood effectively stretches myofibers into growth.


I dont think you will find anything more compelling than what i have posted, but give it a try.

[Tatyana]

This is where I start to get slightly irritated.

Let me put it this way--I will listen to a coach that has encyclopedic knowledge and an incredible track record with producing results over people that look at research ANY day. I get sick of hearing people that read research say all this shit when the literature is usually limited for what we want to do, and you have people out there with not only the education, but broad knowledge of many fields as well as extraordinary amounts of experience AND producing results, and we just say they're full of shit because of "research" or whatever the hell you want to say.

I'm not buying it. That's horse shit.

The majority of modern training techniques and diet are based off scientific research.

I think most people think the fascia is just the covering of the muscle, but it also wraps all the individual muscle fibres and runs through all the muscle.

To stretch out the fascia would be to lose the structural integrity of muscle.


I think it is things like the fascia that make a steak that hasn't been aged properly tough and chewy.

Good steak is aged at least 30 days, or you have to cook roasts for ages to tenderise this.

[TPT]

After really fucking exhaustive searching of the literature on this subject, I conclude that there is very little support for it in the literature. The best support is posted below.

on FST-7.com (a site based on working out to stretch the fascia), I've seen Hanny Rimbod claim that "the best bodybuilders have really thin fascia so they grow faster and more." something like that. Anyway, the only support for variation in thickness of fascia comes from a few studies on patients with "compartment syndrome," a painful syndrom in which exercise causes great pain, probably because the fascia is restricting blood flow.

It HAS been reported that muscle on patients with compartment syndrome appear to be restricted by thicker, perhaps less elastic fascia.

However, Hanny is talking out his ass when he says fast gainers have thinner fascia. There is absolutely nothing in the literature to support this.

In fact, it's not even clear if people with compartment syndrome exhibit slow or restricted muscle growth.

That said, the following study looks at the results of fasciotomy (ie, cutting the fascia), which clearly lessens fascial restriction on the muscle, on muscle fiber growth in patients with compartment syndrome 1 year after fasciotomy.

the study finds significant growth of muscle fibers 1 year after fasciotomy (in the tibialis i think). What is notable however, is that patients with compartment syndrome already have larger mean fiber diameter than controls.

This, of course, doesnt really say anything about normal people, and doesnt' say anything about whether fascia actually restrict muscle growth in normal people. In fact, it appears to be believed that the fascia should NOT restrict growth.

One other notable finding is that patients with compartment syndrome appear to have blunted angiogenesis and resultant capillary density.


Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2009 Oct 4. [Epub ahead of print]
Evidence for low muscle capillary supply as a pathogenic factor in chronic compartment syndrome.

Edmundsson D, Toolanen G, Thornell LE, Stål P.
Department of Surgery and Perioperative Science, Division of Orthopedics, Umeå University Hospital, Umeå, Sweden.
There is a paucity of data regarding the pathogenesis of chronic exertional compartment syndrome (CECS), its consequences for the muscles and the effects of treatment with fasciotomy. We analyzed biopsies from the tibialis anterior muscle, from nine patients, obtained during a decompressing fasciotomy and during follow-up 1 year later. Control biopsies were obtained from nine normal subjects. Muscle capillarity, fiber-type composition and fiber area were analyzed with enzyme- and immunohistochemistry and morphometry. At baseline, CECS patients had lower capillary density (273 vs 378 capillaries/mm(2), P=0.008), lower number of capillaries around muscle fibers (4.5 vs 5.7, P=0.004) and lower number of capillaries in relation to the muscle fiber area (1.1 vs 1.5, P=0.01) compared with normal controls. The fiber-type composition and fiber area did not differ, but focal signs of neuromuscular damage were observed in the CECS samples. At 1-year follow-up after fasciotomy, the fiber area and the number of fibers containing developmental myosin heavy chains were increased, but no enhancement of the capillary network was detected. Thus, morphologically, patients with CECS seemed to have reduced microcirculation capacity. Fasciotomy appeared to trigger a regenerative response in the muscle, however, without any increase in the capillary bed.

compartment syndrome cannot be used to validate the differences in the properties of fascia across people since it occurs secondary to a traumatic event. the fascia is already different because of injury. the limitations of fascia itself and how the body adapts to injury causes compartment syndrome. no evidence exists of correlations between thicker or less elastic fascia and compartment syndrome.

fascia does not limit growth or muscle hypertrophy beyonds its inherent function to provide tension forces and structure. theories of muscle restrictions due to fascia are flawed on every level including physiological processes.

more of these limitations in a bit.

[TPT]

It is a strongly held myth that site-enhancement oil used to stretch the fascia produces muscle growth.

If you believe this, then greg valentino should be able to curl 300 lbs. My guess is, his strength actually dropped after he loaded his arms with oil because of poor perfusion and excessive scarring.

and again, as indicated above, muscle fiber stretching can result in significant development of non-contractile tissue.

Attachment 38629

foriegn substances such as oil would cause mechanical changes of tissue and fascia. but, these changes do not suggest muscle hypertrophy nor strength changes.

[Dr Pangloss]

compartment syndrome cannot be used to validate the differences in the properties of fascia across people since it occurs secondary to a traumatic event. the fascia is already different because of injury. the limitations of fascia itself and how the body adapts to injury causes compartment syndrome. no evidence exists of correlations between thicker or less elastic fascia and compartment syndrome.

fascia does not limit growth or muscle hypertrophy beyonds its inherent function to provide tension forces and structure. theories of muscle restrictions due to fascia are flawed on every level including physiological processes.

more of these limitations in a bit.

There is an old paper cited in the publication i posted that suggested there were differences in thickness and elasticity with compartment syndrome.

would you like me to give the citation?

I was somewhat surprised myself.

Finally, i agree that this idea seems unfounded, and the above paper represents the most supportive data i could find.

There are no fasciotomies performed on control patients to judge what effect (if any) loosening the fascia would have on normal muscle growth.


The only other place to go is myofibril stretching, which would reasonably also result from muscle engorgement or site-enhancement oil.

In any case, Greg valentino and other's hideous growth demands an explanation as to what is "growing." Like i said, there is some suggestion that it can be non-contractile tissue, which seems more likely to me than muscle.


And now folks, we have a real scientific discussion going on this subject....

thanks pt.

[TPT]

[quote=Dr Pangloss;648675]

This is where I start to get slightly irritated.

Let me put it this way--I will listen to a coach that has encyclopedic knowledge and an incredible track record with producing results over people that look at research ANY day. I get sick of hearing people that read research say all this shit when the literature is usually limited for what we want to do, and you have people out there with not only the education, but broad knowledge of many fields as well as extraordinary amounts of experience AND producing results, and we just say they're full of shit because of "research" or whatever the hell you want to say.

I'm not buying it. That's horse shit.[/quote]

The bold is exactly why you are a moron frosty.

Remember this: i dont post for you, because your mind is soft and lacks the discipline to remain evidence-based.

pangloss, these moral lablels are functionally analogous to anectodes. they are all subjective. they are not scientific and do not function scientifically.

im just sayin, be cool.

[Dr Pangloss]

[quote=ThePhysicalTherapist;650262]

pangloss, these moral lablels are functionally analogous to anectodes. they are all subjective. they are not scientific and do not function scientifically.

im just sayin, be cool.

I should be cool and he can call my analysis bullshit? I think you'd better take a second and read the thread.

Secondly, the bold makes no sense.

[TPT]

The majority of modern training techniques and diet are based off scientific research.

I think most people think the fascia is just the covering of the muscle, but it also wraps all the individual muscle fibres and runs through all the muscle.

To stretch out the fascia would be to lose the structural integrity of muscle.


I think it is things like the fascia that make a steak that hasn't been aged properly tough and chewy.

Good steak is aged at least 30 days, or you have to cook roasts for ages to tenderise this.

fascia is usually descibed in three categories: superficial, deep or visceral. i assume when people reference fascial stretching by dc or rambod, they are speaking of superficial or deep. someone can correct me on this. so fasica wraps around not just muscle but bones, organs, tendons, ligaments, etc. this further argues that increasing the extensibility of fascia is not necessarily what we waht.

for a moment, im going to skip over whether we can actually perform this. but, if we could stretch the deep fasica we might cause further orthopaedic involvement because of the tight relationship between fascia, muscle, tendons, ligaments, joint capsule, etc. "loose" fasica would set the occasion for "loose" joints.

[Tatyana]

fascia is usually descibed in three categories: superficial, deep or visceral. i assume when people reference fascial stretching by dc or rambod, they are speaking of superficial or deep. someone can correct me on this. so fasica wraps around not just muscle but bones, organs, tendons, ligaments, etc. this further argues that increasing the extensibility of fascia is not necessarily what we waht.

for a moment, im going to skip over whether we can actually perform this. but, if we could stretch the deep fasica we might cause further orthopaedic involvement because of the tight relationship between fascia, muscle, tendons, ligaments, joint capsule, etc. "loose" fasica would set the occasion for "loose" joints.

Muscle anatomy, any anatomy really, is not my area of expertise by any means.

My limited study have revealed to me that the structure of muscle is incredibly complicated, right down to the actin and myosin fibres.

However, it is fairly obvious that there is a LOT of fascia, as you have stated, and I would think that stretching it out would be analogous to a muscle hernia.