Tommy's Take by Tommy Pomatico 12/1
For Training Nerds Only
Yesterday, I posed a question to John Jewett, one of the leading coaches in the world regarding building muscle. Below is a thread of questions from myself and answers from him. The conversation is not yet finished , but I thought it was still valuable for you guys to see!
Me: Justin Harris has spoken about how he believes sarcoplasm work is important. He states that only about 30% of a muscle is myofibril and the rest is water and bi products. He believes that even if it's not “real ” muscle. The look of the muscle will change and talk about the difference of appearance in powerlifters vs bodybuilders. He's also stated on how studies arent going to take the time to look at if we can increase storage capacity for these bi products and water because it won't apply to any other sport as it's only needed in bodybuilding. I feel as if there is some decent anecdotal evidence around this . What are your guys' thoughts?
John: There is a useful conversation here, but I’d zoom out from the way “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” was originally framed. The earlier version of this idea came more from Cody Hahn’s work showing that what people callsarcoplasmic growth is really just part of the sequential expansion process that precedes and accompanies actual contractile protein increases.
In other words:
It’s not “real growth vs fake growth.”
It’s not two separate mechanisms you train independently.
It’s simply the way muscle adapts on the road to more actin and myosin.
When you train with typical hypertrophy rep ranges, you naturally get:
Glycogen storage expansion
Plasma volume expansion
More enzymatic machinery to handle metabolites
And over time, increases in contractile tissue
You don’t need to program specific “sarcoplasmic workouts” to make this happen. The same mechanical-tension–driven programming that grows contractile tissue will create those sarcoplasmic changes along the way. They’re not separable adaptations in practice.
And if we compare bodybuilders to powerlifters, I don’t think the visual differences are driven by “one group does sarcoplasm training.”
It’s mostly:
Genetics for muscle shape and roundness
Total weekly volume
Frequency of actually taking sets close to failure
Higher rep exposure and fuller body musculature in general
You can even point to Ronnie as an example—extremely round muscle bellies, but most of his training was low-volume, heavy straight sets. Meanwhile, some powerlifters or strongmen (Pudzianowski is a great example) look round and full without doing bodybuilding-style pump sequencing.
So the takeaway is:
Yes, “sarcoplasmic expansion” happens.
No, you don’t need to target it as a special method.
It’s part of the normal adaptive process that comes with hard, progressive hypertrophy work.
Mechanical tension + a variety of rep ranges will give you the contractile andnon-contractile adaptations that create that “bodybuilder look.”
That’s the frame that lines up with the current evidence and still respects the anecdotal observations people latch onto.
Me: As always, an amazing answer!
Something you mentioned that I thought was worth noting is the variance in rep schemes/volume. I notice right now many athletes are hanging in this 6-10 rep range and very low volume (6-12 working sets per muscle per week). I completely understand why. In theory, you will be able to create high levels of mechanical tension and limit fatigue. This then allows you to train the muscle every 48-72 hours which can then lead to more PRs and opportunities for MPS to be elevated.
I sometimes just question how important frequency is , in comparison to creating a stimulus that leads no card unturned. I also ask myself if this is more for someone who has weak points. When you do a Bro split, you ensure that every muscle group is given the attention needed to maximally grow.
A major critique of the bro split is that as the session goes on, your performance tanks. Which i can agree with, although i do believe after years of training this way, you will create muscle endurance adaptations that allow for you to handle this workload and perform quite well. But what I would also say is that in any split, the back half of the workout will always suffer in comparison to what you do in the start. For example when doing an upper body day, if you start with chest, that will get a great stimulus, if you finish with biceps, you will still perform well but not as well if you would have started with them. So then i ask myself, throughout a week/month/year of training , does it all eventually even out. Or are you then left with weak points on a upper/lower or push,pull,legs split due to giving a great stimulus to some muscles but rather weak ones to the ones you finish with. I know you alter exercise selection to prevent this, however you would never start with triceps before chest on a push day unless triceps are super weak. Which once again I would then ask when doing this way, does it all eventually even out because now the chest gets a weaker stimulus that day. Once again this goes to me thinking maybe its best for someone who is advanced and has developed weak points and its okay for the chest to not get the best stimulus each week!
Another potential downfall I see with high frequency is you have to be precise. You only get so many opportunities in that session for growth (especially upper/lower). And if that exercise doesn't quite hit that day, it may just lead to suboptimal growth. Where when you do a bro split, it's almost a guarantee you will create enough stimulus to grow. You could honestly probably "miss " (from an execution stand point) the whole session and still get enough stimulus to grow lol.
This lower volume/ high frequency type of training always just has me questioning whether it's a disservice to not have some high/volume reps due to what comes with it. Although we may not have literature to support it, it seems as if doing some higher volume/reps can create some adaptations that low volume can not. I even think about old school bodybuilding which was done with pyramid sets. Although most of those sets were basically just warm-ups and then last was a working set, maybe the just additional blood flow and volume during those sets helped create some adaptations that mechanical tension alone does not.
Guys like Kuba and JP (who I think are amazing) will really push low volume and heavy loads. They have obviously had tremendous success . At the same time, you will see many others who talk about quite the opposite and also have tremendous results. So it just sometimes leaves me questioning about how much we truly know.
Sorry for the long message, I hope you dont take this as me arguing with you (im certainly not lol) but its just some of the type of stuff i like to geek out on for fun!
Like I said, the conversation is not yet finished. I'm very interested to hear what he will reply with. Hope you all enjoyed it!
Best, Tommy
