I've gone through most of the CSCS textbook and am now going through the review questions. For the question "Which of the following muscle fiber types would be most beneficial for a powerlifter?"
The (existing) choices are Type I, Type IIa and Type IIb.
Why the f do they list the correct answer as Type I? It made no sense, and then went back and re-read, and everything that is in the main chapter supports Type II. What am I missing?
__________________
Quoth David Banner: "Like a pimp"
It's not a beer belly. It's a gas tank for a sex machine.
If it's anything like the 2000 version, then no. Thanks for this thread, though. I'm still debating buying the new version just for reference. I may opt for McGill or Bompa.
__________________ No Magic Pill (the log)
My Movember page (yes, I'm slacking on pictures)
Hell no. NSCA has some epically stupid information, and the CSCS test isn't much better.
True, but it's still a lot better than NASM with their functional/balance first crap and the other stuff out there.
Anyway, a cert is like getting a white belt in martial arts - it's just a symbol for sticking around for a coupla weeks. Then the real learning starts.
__________________
Working "hard," or the perception of working hard, doesn't really mean anything. Sweating, vomiting, and breathing hard could be a good workout or a tropical disease kicking in.-Dan John
Isn't IIx just the contemporary designation for IIb?
When I first started in this, a million years ago, we were told that IIb fibers were transitional, and changed to II (or IIa) with training. But the terminology was also transitional, and after my first few years writing about fitness the IIb designation disappeared altogether (except in my books).
If they aren't the same thing, then I guess I need to study harder.
According to this book, human IIb are now referred to as IIx due to their "sequence homology with the corresponding rat gene". There is also a mute IIb gene on Chromosome 17 but they have not seen expression of it in human motor muscle but it could be found someday in specialized muscle so who really knows.
Type I, IIa and IIb/x are commonly seen (though you can find more, but I'll stick to these for now)
Most often ATPase activity at different levels of Ph are used to differentiate between fibers.
The type of myosin heavy chains (a part of one of the protein filaments that are the machinery in muscle contraction) are often used, we have type I, IIa and IIx in humans. ATPase activity corelates well with this. So if they find type IIa with ATPase activity, it has type IIa myosin heavy chain. I think they used to think we had type IIb myosin heavy chains, then found out that we didn't. The name for the fiber type got stuck. It's not really wrong as long as you say that it has type IIx myosin heavy chain.
Some people get it wrong because they think that type IIb myosin heavy chain is found in humans. Some people shiften from saying type IIb to saying type IIx when they found out that it actually contained heavy chain IIx and not b, while some people stuck to the old name of IIb, but says it contains myosin heavy chain IIx.
Isn't IIx just the contemporary designation for IIb?
When I first started in this, a million years ago, we were told that IIb fibers were transitional, and changed to II (or IIa) with training. But the terminology was also transitional, and after my first few years writing about fitness the IIb designation disappeared altogether (except in my books).
If they aren't the same thing, then I guess I need to study harder.
MHC IIb was referred to for quite awhile because of animal models, but humans don't actually express that particular variant of the protein.
More recent research has found that we express IIx, which is similar, but still a different protein.
Not everyone has caught up, mind, because we still see IIb mentioned in reference to humans, but in almost all those instances you'll see that the actual study was done in rats, rabbits, or cats (occasionally something more exotic).
It gets compounded by the fact that fibers expressing IIx don't even correlate to "active" muscles - IIx expression actually correlates with detraining or unused fibers.
For awhile it was thought that MHC IIx played a similar role as IIb in animals, i.e., fast contraction/rapid shortening. However, it seems that any exercise creates a preferential shift towards IIa expression in type II MUs (via the calcineurin pathway), so the consensus is that IIx really doesn't have much role in human movement anyway, despite being the "fastest" isoform we have.
The "fast twitch" and "slow twitch" classifications don't really correlate to force production, either, which may be related to this.
And this isn't even touching on hybrid fibers that co-express several forms. It gets tricky.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
My guess is that the original post about the question is actually a typo on the question. I doubt if the intention is to make you choose between IIa and IIx/b for powerlifters, so I assume the problem is that the word "most" should have been "least" so that type I is the obvious choice.
I really wish they'd leave questions like that off the test in the first place, as they're a gross distortion of the actual processes going on - and in a way that's irrelevant and potentially counterproductive to reality.
Case in point, anyone telling you to "emphasize the Type IIA fibers" is somebody that thinks the example is really true.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
In defense of gym owners, I think requiring trainers to have some kind of cert just makes sense. It's like an employer requiring a bachelor's degree. It shows you could get your shit together and finish something.
You may have to unlearn a lot of what you learned in college or what you memorized from the cert org's textbook, but at least you showed you're capable of playing by the rules long enough to earn a credential.
But the crushing reality is more bleak. Australia and New Zealand (where I currently live) both have standardized qualification frameworks - which means that the governments don't directly certify people, but they do approve standards which certification providers have to meet.
Providers offer qualifications that range anywhere from a basic weekend course that qualifies you to do the basics of training on up to graduate-degree equivalents (which are roughly CSCS caliber down here, though it's much, much more involved to achieve).
Again, sounds good, right?
Walk in to any gym here and what do you see? Same high squatting, supersetting curls with Bosu ball lunges, bench + Bro-row arrangement as any gym you'd walk into in the US.
My assessment? It's all fucked.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
Anyway, a cert is like getting a white belt in martial arts - it's just a symbol for sticking around for a coupla weeks. Then the real learning starts.
I love that quote! I'm going to steal that one from you (with proper author citation of course! ).
Walk in to any gym here and what do you see? Same high squatting, supersetting curls with Bosu ball lunges, bench + Bro-row arrangement as any gym you'd walk into in the US.
Agreed. Drives me absolutely crazy. I'm working with some college golfers right now, and their college strength coach who is CSCS, USAW (yada, yada) has them doing leg press, bench press, arm days, etc.
On the flip side, another university just contracted with me to develop individual strength programs for each one of their golfers based on a swing assessment. The coach has a MS in kinis and is very forward thinking.
Type I and Type II Fibers
Linear Mode
