[quote]oztrav wrote:
to much gay shit about mitochondria and sarcapaysia or whatever just lift weight and eat your not gonna get strong reading journals about how to get strong you get strong by doing it[/quote]
Brilliant post. Thank you for informing us of that. I’ve never considered actually lifting a weight before. I appreciate you showing me the light.
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
However, I agree that it doesn’t PROVE anything. The energetics theory is just a theory, however, that’s kind of like saying evolution is just a theory. It may not be explicitly proven, but it is generally accepted as the most valid theory. Obviously, the energetics theory involving sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and myofibrilar hypertrophy isn’t on the same level of acceptance as evolution, but I still think it’s pretty valid. Of course, that’s just one man’s very uninformed opinon.[/quote]
My main issue was, this is THE study that has been quoted by several bodybuilding sites and authors as the one somehow proving bodybuilders have more “sarcoplasmic growth” instead of muscle fiber growth. The truth is, it was some study written in another language that person after person who probably can’t even understand Russian has touted as being proof…when there really isn’t anything here. If anything, I guess it pays to be skeptical of the info you get regardless of how many references are listed at the bottom.
[quote]Majin wrote:
My intentions were only to get the material. I didn’t read the whole debate so I’m not trying to prove anything.
As far as rats, well we’ve chosen rats for a reason. Rats have served us well over the years so I don’t see it as much of an insult or a falty method.
The study doesn’t prove much, more like a little breakdown of different types of hypertrophy.[/quote]
Why would rat muscles respond in the same way as human muscles? I know human genes and responses may be very very similar to other organisms, but dont you think all the heavy lifting and constructing humans have done throughout their history has had an effect on the way muscles respond?
just some thoughts.
anyway, very interesting explanations about the hyperplasia occuring because an increase in size of LESS MC’s. to tell you the truth i wouldnt apply any of this info to my training, but i still learned about how organisms respond to physical stress.
thank you for posting the study
I don’t know. To me it actually looks like it goes right with the basic bodybuilding knowledge. It doesn’t prove anything new but it doesn’t seem to detract much either.
For example. Too fast of an intensity build up will not cause much adaptation on the muscular end because it’s not enough time for the muscles to render it as anything continuous(read: worthy of hypertrophic adaptation)… as with olympic/power lifting. But a gradual buildup will allow to perform more work and cause muscles to adapt because they’ve been working for a prolonged amount of time and realise that this is something continuous that they have to become accustomed to…i.e. bodybuilding. Specific Adaptations to Imposed Demand.
Then the sarcoplasm to myofbril ratio balance. With short super-intense bouts like olympic/powerlifting mostly the miofibrils are trained as the direct link to the CNS. Their density outgrows the proportional balance relative to the capillary volume in the sarcoplasm which prevents them from gorowing as much (unless some rep work is performed). On the other hand endurance will mostly train the supply system and lead to small muscle fibers beind very well fed for continuous amounts of time to support such long durations of activity. Again BB falls in the middle - a logical reason we have the 'ol 6-12rep scheme. Because it seems to be the most productive or “rational” way to perform more work. And that’s what we’re doing in the gym - we’re trying to perform more work(weight used AND bout duration). We’re using more or less moderate intensities(most physical labor work is moderate) and trying to get as much volume as possible without burning out - again perfectly rational. In other words bodybuilding is the most efficient way to work!
Vindication if you ask me. 
[quote]Majin wrote:
I don’t know. To me it actually looks like it goes right with the basic bodybuilding knowledge. It doesn’t prove anything new but it doesn’t seem to detract much either.
For example. Too fast of an intensity build up will not cause much adaptation on the muscular end because it’s not enough time for the muscles to render it as anything continuous(read: worthy of hypertrophic adaptation)… as with olympic/power lifting. But a gradual buildup will allow to perform more work and cause muscles to adapt because they’ve been working for a prolonged amount of time and realise that this is something continuous that they have to become accustomed to…i.e. bodybuilding. Specific Adaptations to Imposed Demand.
Then the sarcoplasm to myofbril ratio balance. With short super-intense bouts like olympic/powerlifting mostly the miofibrils are trained as the direct link to the CNS. Their density outgrows the proportional balance relative to the capillary volume in the sarcoplasm which prevents them from gorowing as much (unless some rep work is performed). On the other hand endurance will mostly train the supply system and lead to small muscle fibers beind very well fed for continuous amounts of time to support such long durations of activity. Again BB falls in the middle - a logical reason we have the 'ol 6-12rep scheme. Because it seems to be the most productive or “rational” way to perform more work. And that’s what we’re doing in the gym - we’re trying to perform more work(weight used AND bout duration). We’re using more or less moderate intensities(most physical labor work is moderate) and trying to get as much volume as possible without burning out - again perfectly rational. In other words bodybuilding is the most efficient way to work!
Vindication if you ask me. [/quote]
That’s quite the interesting way of putting it. Good post IMO. For some reason, your post just screamed EDT in my mind, possibly because of the idea of doing more work (which is EDT’s basic goal).
Neat stuff in this thread too! Kudos to you Majin for getting that source too, very cool.
[quote]
That’s quite the interesting way of putting it. Good post IMO. For some reason, your post just screamed EDT in my mind, possibly because of the idea of doing more work (which is EDT’s basic goal).[/quote]
I was thinking the same thing! But another way you can put it is making the week your PR zone…i.e. doing more work in a weeks time is how I usually look at my workouts.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
If anything, I guess it pays to be skeptical of the info you get regardless of how many references are listed at the bottom.[/quote]
So you mean we should actually try to draw on our real world experiences?
Fuck, maybe that article WASN’T exactly what I was looking for!
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
Fuck, maybe that article WASN’T exactly what I was looking for![/quote]
ROFLMFAO (also known as, rolling on the floor, laughing my friggin’ ass off).
Thanks to the players: jtrin, X, and Meijin for this thread.
Regards,
Mark
Sorry to revive an old old thread, but although this issue is discussed often I still don’t think people get it. It appears that the body adapts to high volume pumping by increasing sarcoplasmic fluid, which consequently provides the body with a more ready store of glycogen synthesis. On the other hand we have higher weight lower volume workouts which induce more muscle tension and thus microtrauma (myotrauma) which in turn creates greater sarcomeric hypertrophy.
Because a body builder’s “function” is primarily to have bigger, more aesthtic muscles he should be maximizing BOTH aspects in order to achieve the greatest hypertophy. Ronny Coleman has video of repping 800 2X with plenty left in the tank.
Lastly, I personally believe that power lifters, and others shouldn’t neglect at least some higher volume of pumping as the increased fluid capacity, nutrient uptake, lactic acid build up and consequent release of growth hormone can also be an excellent aid in recovering from a power workout.
Both modes of hypertrophy compliment each other for an athlete to reach their pinnacle training goal. An athlete may also want to consider the effect of carrying additional sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, for example a ski jumper who must be incredible light to extend their jump will want to minimize sarcoplasmic hypertrophy regardless of the boon it may have to training recovery. A “pure” power lifter however will have little problem with additional poundage.
[quote]jacobwh wrote:
Sorry to revive an old old thread, but although this issue is discussed often I still don’t think people get it. It appears that the body adapts to high volume pumping by increasing sarcoplasmic fluid, which consequently provides the body with a more ready store of glycogen synthesis. On the other hand we have higher weight lower volume workouts which induce more muscle tension and thus microtrauma (myotrauma) which in turn creates greater sarcomeric hypertrophy.
Because a body builder’s “function” is primarily to have bigger, more aesthtic muscles he should be maximizing BOTH aspects in order to achieve the greatest hypertophy. Ronny Coleman has video of repping 800 2X with plenty left in the tank.
Lastly, I personally believe that power lifters, and others shouldn’t neglect at least some higher volume of pumping as the increased fluid capacity, nutrient uptake, lactic acid build up and consequent release of growth hormone can also be an excellent aid in recovering from a power workout.
Both modes of hypertrophy compliment each other for an athlete to reach their pinnacle training goal. An athlete may also want to consider the effect of carrying additional sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, for example a ski jumper who must be incredible light to extend their jump will want to minimize sarcoplasmic hypertrophy regardless of the boon it may have to training recovery. A “pure” power lifter however will have little problem with additional poundage.[/quote]
Did you actually read this thread?
The OP has provided zero evidence of “disproportionate increase,” despite his claiming that what Professor X said on this is the entire thing he is arguing.
What the fuck is his issue with this? If it were the case that bb’ing training produced more sarcoplasmic hypertrohy for a given amount of sarcomere hypertrophy than PL’ing training, why does he care and why does he think it’s an issue?
I don’t get the impression that he cares out of pure science.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
The OP has provided zero evidence of “disproportionate increase,” despite his claiming that what Professor X said on this is the entire thing he is arguing.
What the fuck is his issue with this? If it were the case that bb’ing training produced more sarcoplasmic hypertrohy for a given amount of sarcomere hypertrophy than PL’ing training, why does he care and why does he think it’s an issue?
I don’t get the impression that he cares out of pure science.[/quote]
Breath Bill, my laptop started smoking with the anger building up inside you…
Actually the bold print and the forceful language is for the reason of trying to make sure that this is seen as a central and key point.
Usually motivation is not relevant to addressing an argument, but in this case it is, as the leading-in point demonstrates that he has no case in the first place against the statement he is criticizing. So it is not facts driving his argument – it is some sort of issue.
Thus to cut to the chase, we really need to cut to the matter of what issue this individual has – he pretty clearly has one on this topic. Why, I cannot imagine, but there has to be one.
I’ve read over the thread, nothing especially new or groundbreaking here.
In some experimental models with animals there has been some evidence for myofibril hyperplasia (not all animal studies show this either), but this has not been found in humans at all, and there have been countless studies evaluating changes in myofibril size and structure.
Expansion of cellular volume associated with myofibril hypertrophy and increase in the size and number of mitochondria with specific types of training … so what? Pick up any exercise physiology text (Robergs, Brooks, McArdle to name a few) and you can read all about that.
I like the use of “thus” in a sentence Bill, I’ve never really got a handle on how to use that word…just doesn’t come to my mind as a word to use.
I don’t know why it comes to mind for me, it just does sometimes. I’d never noticed it before. Now that I think about it, I probably use it when otherwise I would have used the word “so,” but had just used it and don’t want to repeat it.
At least it isn’t as with someone I knew, who liked to and deliberately did work in the word “antepenultimate” whenever he could 
Anyway, the OP’s objection was to “not disproportionate,” and yet in all that noise he never came up with one thing to even begin to show that there is anything disproportionate.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I don’t know why it comes to mind for me, it just does sometimes. I’d never noticed it before. Now that I think about it, I probably use it when otherwise I would have used the word “so,” but had just used it and don’t want to repeat it.
At least it isn’t as with someone I knew, who liked to and deliberately did work in the word “antepenultimate” whenever he could
Anyway, the OP’s objection was to “not disproportionate,” and yet in all that noise he never came up with one thing to even begin to show that there is anything disproportionate.[/quote]
I think his problem was with me stating openly that “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” based on training style has not been proven to occur in humans beyond that normally associated with muscle growth.
This debate began in 2006. You had some authors beginning to use “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” back then to state that bodybuilders were “weaker”…as if to provide more substance to their “anti-bodybuilding training programs”. When I began asking where the proof was of this, some fan boys got pissed.
It looks like there is no proof and never was in the first place outside of a rat model.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
At least it isn’t as with someone I knew, who liked to and deliberately did work in the word “antepenultimate” whenever he could [/quote]
Now that’s different.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I think his problem was with me stating openly that “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” based on training style has not been proven to occur in humans beyond that normally associated with muscle growth.
This debate began in 2006. You had some authors beginning to use “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” back then to state that bodybuilders were “weaker”…as if to provide more substance to their “anti-bodybuilding training programs”. When I began asking where the proof was of this, some fan boys got pissed.
It looks like there is no proof and never was in the first place outside of a rat model.[/quote]
Damn straight about that. Anyway, the difference in strength between bodybuilders and powerlifters has been identified as the difference in type II fiber hypertrophy (p-lifters bigger type IIs, especially IIb) whereas bodybuilders achieve better balanced hypertrophy of IIa, IIb, and I. So you could argue that bodybuilders train more functionally
But hey, people spin physiology however they want if they think it helps them justify a particular training technique, or reinforce their own particular dogma.
That’s why people get pissed at you X, you call people out on their dogma.
Mel Siff proposed the idea of sarcoplasmic vs. myofibrilar hypertrophy in the book “Supertraining,” basing his conlcusions on the Russian study. Because so many people considered Mel an infalliable scientific authority, a lot of them (myself included) simply ate this up, having no ability to evaluate the evidence. Years later, I now find the argument uncompelling, and regret having accepted it so uncritically.
[quote]GluteusGigantis wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I think his problem was with me stating openly that “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” based on training style has not been proven to occur in humans beyond that normally associated with muscle growth.
This debate began in 2006. You had some authors beginning to use “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” back then to state that bodybuilders were “weaker”…as if to provide more substance to their “anti-bodybuilding training programs”. When I began asking where the proof was of this, some fan boys got pissed.
It looks like there is no proof and never was in the first place outside of a rat model.
Damn straight about that. Anyway, the difference in strength between bodybuilders and powerlifters has been identified as the difference in type II fiber hypertrophy (p-lifters bigger type IIs, especially IIb) whereas bodybuilders achieve better balanced hypertrophy of IIa, IIb, and I. So you could argue that bodybuilders train more functionally
[/quote]
Honestly, I don’t really even think this is so much the case. It has more to do with specificity, training style, and genetics than it does with having bigger type 11b’s.
Powerlifters train specifically for 1RM strength (meaning they do a lot of 1RM’s and train with this goal in mind). This most likely leads to improved rate coding and other neurological improvements which aid them while trying to put up maximum single lifts. Many however also do a fair bit of “repeated effort” work, accessory work and some even energy systems work which targets the type 11a and type 1 fibers.
Most bodybuilders on the other hand are not interested in maximum single lifts and therefore do not train for them. Many rarely go below 4 repetitions and therefore don’t get the same neurological improvements as the powerlifters. They still are recruiting all of their fibers though by either going heavy (3-4 reps is likely enough to recruit all fibers) or going to failure with moderate reps (which also recruits all fibers).
There are powerlifters who have quite a lot of muscle on them (Tate, Kroc, Kaz, etc…) and bodybuilders who are very strong (Ronnie, Jackson, Harris, etc…). So making blanket generalizations about either group is a little misleading.