BB'ing and Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy

Training Bodybuilding
21

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
Prof. X.,

I know this concept might be foreign to you, but people do train for other things besides simply being as big as possible.[/quote]

Who has written that everyone’s goal is size alone? What may be foreign to you is that noone is unaware of this.

[quote]
I can think of plenty of reasons why people would want to avoid sarcoplasmic hypertrophy[/quote]

This is where you lose it. Do you know what sarcoplasm is? Do you know what the sarcoplasmic reticulum is? Why would ANYONE want to stunt its development in relation to muscle fibers? They come as a package deal.

[quote]
, namely in any sport where speed is a key or any time people are trying to stay in a specific weight class or sports where endurance is not a factor.[/quote]

Now you are talking about the size of muscle fibers which is mostly dependant on your FOOD INTAKE.

The article you posted didn’t present one study showing that “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” is significantly increased through “high reps”. Please find a study that proves this.

22

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
That is, sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is largely a function of working in higher brackets. So therefore, when somebody gains sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, they have also certainly gained myofibrilar hypertrophy as well, but not neccesarily the other way around.[/quote]

Could we have proof of “higher brackets” leading to mostly “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” at a decreased rate of muscle fiber growth?

23

“The data shows that the longer and more strenuous the submaximal loading, the less there is sarcomere hypertophy and the more there is sarcoplasmic hypertophy.”

I could be misunderstanding things, but that would seem to indicate to me that lower work bracketss induce more sarcomere hypertrophy but the longer you induce submaximal loading, the more you stimulate the energetical components of your muscles.

As I posted, that article as an excerpt from Supertraining, which is probably the most well-referenced book on strength training there is (over 600 references) and is considered by many to be a textbook in and of itself.

24

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
“The data shows that the longer and more strenuous the submaximal loading, the less there is sarcomere hypertophy and the more there is sarcoplasmic hypertophy.”

I could be misunderstanding things, but that would seem to indicate to me that lower work bracketss induce more sarcomere hypertrophy but the longer you induce submaximal loading, the more you stimulate the energetical components of your muscles.

As I posted, that article as an excerpt from Supertraining, which is probably the most well-referenced book on strength training there is (over 600 references) and is considered by many to be a textbook in and of itself.[/quote]

So, where are the references?

25

Also, because this seems to need to be repeated every other day, an article is not a study. It is simply someone saying something is one way. These should not be taken as “fact” and definitely not to the point where entire training premises are based on a comment.

26

I believe there are 7 references in the excerpt I posted, including:

Nikituk, B & Samoilov, N (1990)The adaptive mechanisms of muscle fibers to exercise and possibilities for controllingg them.

Goldspink, D F (1980 Physiological factors influecing protein turnover and muscle growth in mammals.

McDonagh, M & Davies, C (1984) Adaptive response of mammalian muscle to exercise with high loads.

Goldberg et al (1975) Mechanism of work-induced hypertrophy of skeletal muscle.

27

One additional comment. When somebody who is an expert in a field draws a conclusion based on analysis of studies combined with anecdotal evidence, it may not be fact but it should be strongly considered.

28

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
I believe there are 7 references in the excerpt I posted, including:

Nikituk, B & Samoilov, N (1990)The adaptive mechanisms of muscle fibers to exercise and possibilities for controllingg them.

Goldspink, D F (1980 Physiological factors influecing protein turnover and muscle growth in mammals.

McDonagh, M & Davies, C (1984) Adaptive response of mammalian muscle to exercise with high loads.

Goldberg et al (1975) Mechanism of work-induced hypertrophy of skeletal muscle.

[/quote]

I need the source for “McDonagh, M & Davies, C (1984) Adaptive response of mammalian muscle to exercise with high loads.” I can’t locate the study based on the info you provided. The others are studies based on findings seen from exercise as far as protein uptake and muscular adaptation with no direct look at an increase in “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy”.

In fact, this one:
Mechanism of work-induced hypertrophy of skeletal muscle.

[quote] Goldberg AL, Etlinger JD, Goldspink DF, Jablecki C.

Skeletal muscle can undergo rapid growth in response to a sudden increase in work load. For example, the rat soleus muscle increases in weight by 40% within six days after the tendon of the synergistic gastrocnemius is sectioned. Such growth of the overworked muscle involves an enlargement of muscle fibers and occasional longitudinal splitting. Hypertrophy leads to greater maximal tension development, although decreased contraction time and reduced contractility have also been reported. Unlike normal developmental growth, work-induced hypertrophy can be induced in hypophysectomized or diabetic animals. This process thus appears independent of growth hormone and insulin as well as testosterone and thyroid hormones. Hypertrophy of the soleus can also be induced in fasting animals, in which there is a generalized muscle wasting. Thus muscular activity takes precedence over endocrine influences on muscle size. The increase in muscle weight reflects an increase in protein, especially sarcoplasmic protein, and results from greater protein synthesis and reduced protein breakdown. Within several hours after operation, the hypertrophying soleus shows more rapid uptake of certain amino acids and synthesis of phosphatidyl-inositol. By 8 hours, protein synthesis is enhanced. RNA synthesis also increases, and hypertrophy can be prevented with actinomycin D. Nuclear DNA synthesis also increases on the second day after operation and leads to a greater DNA content. The significance of the increased RNA and DNA synthesis is not clear, since most of it occurs in interstitial and satellite cells. The proliferation of the non-muscle cells seems linked to the growth of the muscle fibers; in addition, factors causing muscle atrophy (e.g. denervation) decrease DNA synthesis by such cells. In order to define more precisely the early events in hypertrophy, the effects of contractile activity were studied in rat muscles in vitro. Electrical stimulation enhanced active transport of certain amino acids within an hour, and the magnitude of this effect depended on the amount of contractile activity. Stimulation or passive stretch of the soleus or diaphragm also retarded protein degradation. Presumably these effects of mechanical activity contribute to the changes occuring during hypertrophy in vivo. However, under the same conditions, or even after more prolonged stimulation, no change in rates of protein synthesis was detected. These findings with passive tension in vitro are particularly interesting, since passive stretch has been reported to retard atrophy or to induce hypertrophy of denervated muscle in vivo. It is suggested that increased tension development (either passive or active) is the critical event in initiating compensatory growth. [/quote]

while extremely interesting as far as muscular adaptation in the absence of hormonal stimulation does not go into any detail as far as what I specifically asked you. Your “sarcoplasm” is extremely important in how your muscles adapt to a training stimulus through the influx of nutrients. To claim you want to reduce this doesn’t make much sense. Your focus should rather be on decreased food intake. One thing this particular study does point out is how the sarcoplasm isn’t some seperate entitity in terms of muscle adaptation. They work hand in hand.

29

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
One additional comment. When somebody who is an expert in a field draws a conclusion based on analysis of studies combined with anecdotal evidence, it may not be fact but it should be strongly considered.[/quote]

Why wouldn’t your goal be to become one of those experts? There is value in second opinions, especially when you aren’t uneducated yourself.

30

I need the source for “Nikituk, B & Samoilov, N (1990)The adaptive mechanisms of muscle fibers to exercise and possibilities for controllingg them” as well because while this study seems to be referenced by other articles, it is not available through a search. I would have to go to a better medical library than we have here to find it.

Looking at other web sites, this study seems to be the one credited with “The type of hypertrophy that you experience from your training depends on the manner in which you train. High volume/moderate rep(8-12) training leads to more sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, while lower volume/low rep(1-6) training leads to more sarcomere hypertrophy (Nikituk & Samoilov, 1990)”. I would like to see that study though and will concede if this is proven as fact.

Until then, to make claims based on body size and bodybuilding versus powerlifting when it comes to “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” would be a jump to conclusions. Many trainers today, myself included, don’t even train in a 8-12 rep range. That would appear to change everything.

31

Prof X.,

Definitly some good points being made here. I appreciate the fact that you are taking time to go through and read everything that I have posted. I know my posting got a little defensive earlier so I’m glad that you were able to keep this debate more “scientific” instead of degenerating into the flame wars that a lot of these posts tend to- thanks for your maturity in this issue.

On a side note, I definitly would love to become an expert in this field, I’m a college student right now (undergrad) and I plan on pursuing a PhD in biomechanics. Until then, I’m just trying to get my hands on as many books and reference materials as possible. I’m glad we’ve had the chance to have this debate because it’s forcing me to go back and really analyze some of this stuff some more. I know I’m learning a lot and I hope some other people are too.

The McDonagh and Davies reference I believe is a translated foreign text.

The full citation from Supertraining is:

McDonagh, M & Davies, C (1984) Adaptive response of mammalian muscle to exercise with high loads. Eur J Appl Physiol 52: 139-155.

So that seems like it is from a medical journal maybe?

I believe the Nikituk and Samoilov study is also a translated text. Full citation is as follows:

Nikituk, B & Samoilov, N (1990) The adaptive mechanisms of muscle fibres to exercise and possibilities for controlling them. Teoriya i Praktika Fizischeskoi Kultury 5: 11-14.

I also was unable to locate these, maybe you will have better luck. That aside though, I’ll try to lend a little of my thought processes to this discussion, let me know if you think it is valid.

First of all, let me clarify what I meant by “work bracket.” Energy systems could also be used, but I think work bracket works well. For instance, pretty much any high-intensity work under 9 seconds is going to be almost entirely anaerobic and strongly rely on ATP as the energy source. I have seen coaches refer to this as the “Anaerobic response” bracket. Then, somewhere from 10 to about 30 or 40 seconds the creatine reserves are relied upon as the energy system shifts from glycolytic to oxidative where the aerobic pathways start to kick in towards the end of the first minute. I’ve seen this 10-40 second bracket referred to as the “anaerobic reserve.”

Studies have shown that higher-rep work of moderate intensity can shift type II/X fibers to type II/A fibers. I believe thse studies compared olympic weightlifters to bodybuilders in the 80s or early 90s, when most bodybuilders were training using more “traditional” practices. I hate to use generalizations like that, but I think they are fair in this instance. The type II/A fibers behave similarly to the type II/X fibers in that they are capable of fast contractions, but they have larger mitochondrial components and can make more use of oxidative energy systems than the type II/X. They also contract at a slightly slower speed than type II/X fibers. What I am trying to assert that work in this “anaerobic reserve” bracket creates a shift from type II/X to type II/A as the body adapts to the work in the “bridge” between the glycolytic and oxidative pathways.

I think this is applicable to pure “power” athletes, I’m thinking of olympic lifters as a good example here, in that the energetical components of the muscles are not very important. That is, obviously an olympic weightlifter doesn’t need to sustain effort for any longer than a couple seconds. Therefore, “sacroplasmic hypertrophy” is not as important. Taking this one step further, since the bodies adaptive reserves are limited, any training which stimulates sarcoplasmic hypertrophy should be avoided in favor of training with stimulates myofibrilar hypertrophy and more importantly the nervous system.

Does that seem like reasonable analysis or am I going off base somewhere?

32

Just wanted to bump this…

33

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
I believe the Nikituk and Samoilov study is also a translated text. Full citation is as follows:

Nikituk, B & Samoilov, N (1990) The adaptive mechanisms of muscle fibres to exercise and possibilities for controlling them. Teoriya i Praktika Fizischeskoi Kultury 5: 11-14.[/quote]

Apparently, it was written in Russian. It makes me question everyone who has quoted this study because unless they can also read Russian, they are probably simply repeating what someone else told them about the study. I choose to go to the source. Since I can’t even find this study, I am left wondering if what people are basing entire routines on is even true.

[quote]
I also was unable to locate these, maybe you will have better luck.[/quote]

No such luck.

We don’t diagree here aside from my understanding of this situation being much more variable and not so tied into specific time parameters.

[quote]
Studies have shown that higher-rep work of moderate intensity can shift type II/X fibers to type II/A fibers. I believe thse studies compared olympic weightlifters to bodybuilders in the 80s or early 90s, when most bodybuilders were training using more “traditional” practices. I hate to use generalizations like that, but I think they are fair in this instance. The type II/A fibers behave similarly to the type II/X fibers in that they are capable of fast contractions, but they have larger mitochondrial components and can make more use of oxidative energy systems than the type II/X. They also contract at a slightly slower speed than type II/X fibers. What I am trying to assert that work in this “anaerobic reserve” bracket creates a shift from type II/X to type II/A as the body adapts to the work in the “bridge” between the glycolytic and oxidative pathways.

I think this is applicable to pure “power” athletes, I’m thinking of olympic lifters as a good example here, in that the energetical components of the muscles are not very important. That is, obviously an olympic weightlifter doesn’t need to sustain effort for any longer than a couple seconds. Therefore, “sacroplasmic hypertrophy” is not as important. Taking this one step further, since the bodies adaptive reserves are limited, any training which stimulates sarcoplasmic hypertrophy should be avoided in favor of training with stimulates myofibrilar hypertrophy and more importantly the nervous system.[/quote]

I wish you would quit even using the word “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy”. I train using heavy weight for lower reps. I am aware of muscle fibers having the ability to adapt and convert to fibers that can support more endurance, but are less likely to revert to fast twitch muscle fibers which are responsible for the most power, size and force. This is why I purposefully stayed away from higher rep ranges in trying to build the most size. This is very reliant on food intake and the act of using weights that truly stress the target muscle group. It didn’t have anything to do with avoiding “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” or believing that lower rep ranges lead to more fiber growth. It had everything to do with training the fibers that respond the most to size as a priority before ever adding in higher rep ranges in an effort to train for more endurance. The slow twitch muscle fibers grow the least and aren’t likely to revert to fibers that respond as fast twitch muscle fibers.

[quote]
Does that seem like reasonable analysis or am I going off base somewhere?[/quote]

I think focusing on “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” is a waste of time until I see evidence to believe otherwise. I have not seen that and I can’t even find someone who can even translate the original study that so many seem to be basing this idea on.

34

Prof X,

Glad you responded. I thought this thread had died- I’m glad it didn’t because there’s been some good dialogue.

As far as the Russian texts so, I know that Siff has had a great deal of dialogue with the Russian authors (he spent a couple of weeks in Russia with Yuri Verkhoshansky) and all of the texts were translated by Dr. Michael Yessis. While Yessis’s “solo” writings and analysis has been a little dubious (to say the least), I believe his translations were fairly accurate. However, I agree that not everything should be based on a study that may or may not be translated and interpereted correctly.

For some reason, you seem to have a big problem with the term “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” and I’m not sure why. I believe it’s fairly well-supported by the scientific literature. However, I realize that people have taken it too far and think that bodybuilders (again, using the term very loosely) ONLY gain sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. I don’t think you can increase the size of the energetical components of a muscle without increasing the size of the fibers. I think a lot of people miss that.

Maybe you would prefer the term “muscular endurance”?

35

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:

Maybe you would prefer the term “muscular endurance”?[/quote]

I do and that is why I used it. I don’t think half of the people talking about “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” even know exactly what sarcoplasm even is.

36

[quote]Professor X wrote:
jtrinsey wrote:

Maybe you would prefer the term “muscular endurance”?

I do and that is why I used it. I don’t think half of the people talking about “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” even know exactly what sarcoplasm even is.[/quote]

Fair 'nuff. I think if more guys who were looking to get big trained those fast-twitch fibers (like it seems like you are doing), they probably wouldn’t be able to stretch their nipples across the room.

37

What’s with all the talk about sarcoplasm being bad for weight-classed athletes? Maybe in powerlifting, that would be true.

But in sports like wrestling, martial arts, and boxing, muscle endurance would be more important than strength for wearing down an opponent.

In life situations, I can think of some where either sarcoplasmic or sarcomeric hypertrophy are more helpful than the other. For instance, how about fighting a large fish, like Santiago from “The Old Man and the Sea”? More sarcoplasm, in that case.

And for aesthical size gains, wouldn’t the combination of all hypertrophy methods lead to the biggest possible body? I say, train for variety then.

38

[quote]Kailash wrote:
What’s with all the talk about sarcoplasm being bad for weight-classed athletes? Maybe in powerlifting, that would be true.

But in sports like wrestling, martial arts, and boxing, muscle endurance would be more important than strength for wearing down an opponent.

In life situations, I can think of some where either sarcoplasmic or sarcomeric hypertrophy are more helpful than the other. For instance, how about fighting a large fish… [quote]

True enough.

Splitting wood, shoveling snow, carrying large items, moving furniture…

Real world strength is rarely one rep strength, not that that type of strength is not good to have as well.

39

Fighting a fish??

40

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
Fighting a fish??[/quote]

“The Old Man and the Sea”, dude, or go fishing for 1000lb marlin with your own sacroplasm.