Does lifting make your muscles ‘harder’? If so, what is the science behind it? Any references?
Is it myofibrillar hypertrophy? It seems like that would only make the existing muscle larger (not ‘harder’).
btw I’m not talking about differences in body fat. I’m talking about the actual muscle.
[quote]NaturalBeasting wrote:
Does lifting make your muscles ‘harder’? If so, what is the science behind it? Any references?
Is it myofibrillar hypertrophy? It seems like that would only make the existing muscle larger (not ‘harder’).
btw I’m not talking about differences in body fat. I’m talking about the actual muscle.[/quote]
The answer to that is yes and no. If you train a muscle regularly enough, it will retain a level of tonicity (rigidity) that will gradually decrease over time until it has no increased muscle tone if someone stops lifting all together.
This is a temporary response action.
Most bigger guys have muscle that are more rigid because of less body fat and a shit ton of muscle. If you press against my chest, it will be pliable unless I am flexing…but the increased muscle mass in the area may make it harder to press against alone.
I will also say this…the bigger you are, the harder those muscles can become when flexed in what I have experienced. Some guy with 14" arms will never be able to flex his arm and produce the rigidity of some guy with 20" arms.
X - are you referring to the density of the muscle and muscle maturity as well?
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
X - are you referring to the density of the muscle and muscle maturity as well?[/quote]
Muscle maturity is just a “look”. Yes, we are talking about increased muscle mass or “density”. Ask a guy with 20" muscular arms to flex his biceps and it will likely be way harder than a guy with 16" arms who also lifts with the same frequency just from the increased mass alone.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]NaturalBeasting wrote:
Does lifting make your muscles ‘harder’? If so, what is the science behind it? Any references?
Is it myofibrillar hypertrophy? It seems like that would only make the existing muscle larger (not ‘harder’).
btw I’m not talking about differences in body fat. I’m talking about the actual muscle.[/quote]
The answer to that is yes and no. If you train a muscle regularly enough, it will retain a level of tonicity (rigidity) that will gradually decrease over time until it has no increased muscle tone if someone stops lifting all together.
This is a temporary response action.
Most bigger guys have muscle that are more rigid because of less body fat and a shit ton of muscle. If you press against my chest, it will be pliable unless I am flexing…but the increased muscle mass in the area may make it harder to press against alone.
I will also say this…the bigger you are, the harder those muscles can become when flexed in what I have experienced. Some guy with 14" arms will never be able to flex his arm and produce the rigidity of some guy with 20" arms.[/quote]
What exactly causes the elevated level of tonicity from training? (ability to hold more glycogen in the muscle? or more proteins?)
I agrree with prof., but let me add this:
density/hardness/muscle maturity has also a lot to do with age, bcause human beings lose a lot of water as they age.
A talented 20 year old bodybuilder will always look softer then a guy who is ten years his senior and even a little less developed.
[quote]NaturalBeasting wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]NaturalBeasting wrote:
Does lifting make your muscles ‘harder’? If so, what is the science behind it? Any references?
Is it myofibrillar hypertrophy? It seems like that would only make the existing muscle larger (not ‘harder’).
btw I’m not talking about differences in body fat. I’m talking about the actual muscle.[/quote]
The answer to that is yes and no. If you train a muscle regularly enough, it will retain a level of tonicity (rigidity) that will gradually decrease over time until it has no increased muscle tone if someone stops lifting all together.
This is a temporary response action.
Most bigger guys have muscle that are more rigid because of less body fat and a shit ton of muscle. If you press against my chest, it will be pliable unless I am flexing…but the increased muscle mass in the area may make it harder to press against alone.
I will also say this…the bigger you are, the harder those muscles can become when flexed in what I have experienced. Some guy with 14" arms will never be able to flex his arm and produce the rigidity of some guy with 20" arms.[/quote]
What exactly causes the elevated level of tonicity from training? (more glycogen? more proteins in the muscle?)[/quote]
I would blame neural activity above all else. This is why you can’t train to be the top fighter in the world learning 15 different martial arts…and then sit on your ass for 40 years with no exercise and expect to jump up and respond the same. Training is teaching your body to be ready for an assault. Not training is allowing your body to relax and become flaccid.
Addition, yes, especially with regards to really big guys with 18" arms or bigger, increased glycogen can also play a part as well as increased blood flow.
since it was brought up, can anyone post up a few comparison pics of more vs. less ‘mature’ muscle and/or provide more description on that? i’ve never really been sure what exactly that means…i know it’s something visual, but i just don’t get it yet.
[quote]agent37 wrote:
since it was brought up, can anyone post up a few comparison pics of more vs. less ‘mature’ muscle and/or provide more description on that? i’ve never really been sure what exactly that means…i know it’s something visual, but i just don’t get it yet.[/quote]
Look at pictures from top local amateurs. Check out the winners of all the weight classes in the recent Atlantic States NPC show. That’s a regional qulifier. Then look at the amateurs winning the USA’s or National’s. Then look at results of the NY Pro. Every competitor you see winning the classes are using AAS. But the physiques look dramatically different.
Looking at natural bodybuilding comps (amatuer and pro) MAY show even more dramatic differences.
Go to the websites that have contest coverage. There are three main ones. Cant put links in, obviously.
Since muscles are made of long running fibers, which are thickened by trauma (weightlifting), the inner fibers are now thicker pushing against outer fibers which are now thicker as well. this would also pull the outer most layer tight against the inner layers, giving a less flabby look
I don’t know if you can visualize that or if my picture helps (yay MS paint, and I just realised that what I drew doesn’t really reflect what I just said, as I simply added more layers…instead of making them thicker…maybe I’ll make another post tomorrow when I’m less tired)
I think muscle maturity is really just the thinning of the skin as someone gets older. Very young bodybuilders on average never seemed to look as ripped in contest shape as others that are 10 or 15 years older.
[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:
I think muscle maturity is really just the thinning of the skin as someone gets older. Very young bodybuilders on average never seemed to look as ripped in contest shape as others that are 10 or 15 years older.[/quote]
It’s not just about thinner skin.
Above is Sergio Oliva Junior, the son of the great one. While amazingly developed, his father looked a tad different at a slightly greater age.
…and then there’s Big Daddy.
There is a just a different look here…as if Junior might possibly lose a good chunk of size if he went a week without his required meals…while Dad looks like his muscles have a more permanent look to them…more dense, more solid, more a reflection of DECADES of hard work instead of a couple of years.
Most don’t really get that look to them until their 30’s.
Junior again.
Dad.
Even with slightly higher body fat than his son, his muscles look like a left hook from the man would take your jaw clean off.
sergio’s triceps are unreal
Really great explanation, X, thanks. I’ve only ever had a vague intuition of what was meant by “older grainier muscles”.
[quote]jak3_dude wrote:
[…]
I don’t know if you can visualize that or if my picture helps (yay MS paint, and I just realised that what I drew doesn’t really reflect what I just said, as I simply added more layers…instead of making them thicker…maybe I’ll make another post tomorrow when I’m less tired)[/quote]
Correct, you don’t gain any new fibres, the preexisting ones only thicken.
Also it’s [/b]“biceps”[b], (latin: two-headed ) there is no “bicep”.
thank you for the clarification and pics X and BONEZ - i was never sure if that’s what was meant by maturity, or if it was more a matter of conditioning.
