Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy

VoodooPlata

Brown Belt
@Brown
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
2,532
Reaction score
0
Hi guys! I googled some but couldn't find any answer on this particular question: how does sarcoplasmic hypertrophy help the muscle?

My reasoning is that since a higher rep range will elicit sarcoplasmic rather than myofibrillar hypertrophy, this must somehow help the body whilst performing tasks which are "high rep" in nature - how does it do this? Or is the swelling of the tissue between the muscle fibers just a bi-product of some other mechanism?
 
...and then i found an answer. Sarcoplasm helps ATP conversion.
 
I do three kinds of squats in my four-day-a-week routine. Is that enough?

I asked because i have come to see sarcoplasmic hypertrophy as something entirely negative lately, and if i'm going to keep this volume (Wendler) up i want to know that bigger isn't always worse even if you consider weight classes. I am NOT a bodybuilder, nor do i do any kind of curls.
 
I do three kinds of squats in my four-day-a-week routine. Is that enough?

I asked because i have come to see sarcoplasmic hypertrophy as something entirely negative lately, and if i'm going to keep this volume (Wendler) up i want to know that bigger isn't always worse even if you consider weight classes. I am NOT a bodybuilder, nor do i do any kind of curls.

A bigger muscle is a stronger muscle. Pretty simple shit. How many people who are benching 400+ or pulling 700+ have small effeminate muscles?

Strong biceps and forearms help prevent elbow problems, forearm splints, and bicep tears -- curls are not worthless.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
2-types-of-muscle-growth500.jpg


Haven't you seen this? I feel that in the lifting community sarcoplasm is often frowned upon. Also, my biceps are fine - i do a lot of pull-ups and rows.
 
2-types-of-muscle-growth500.jpg


Haven't you seen this? I feel that in the lifting community sarcoplasm is often frowned upon. Also, my biceps are fine - i do a lot of pull-ups and rows.

Any type of muscle hypertrophy will entail both sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar hypertrophy to a certain degree. Also strength gains are dependent mostly upon increased CNS efficiency to a much greater degree than actual muscle fiber hypertrophy. Also that picture is fucking retarded and completely inaccurate. Sarcoplasm is not "useless". You would not be able to complete any work without these fluids. And anyone who thinks otherwise is just uneducated.
 
Any type of muscle hypertrophy will entail both sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar hypertrophy to a certain degree. Also strength gains are dependent mostly upon increased CNS efficiency to a much greater degree than actual muscle fiber hypertrophy. Also that picture is fucking retarded and completely inaccurate. Sarcoplasm is not "useless". You would not be able to complete any work without these fluids. And anyone who thinks otherwise is just uneducated.

If this is true, why did you say bigger muscles = stronger muscles in an earlier post?
 
If this is true, why did you say bigger muscles = stronger muscles in an earlier post?

strength is a combination of many different factors


however there is like a 95% correlation between muscle size and strength
 
I feel like i've been misinterpreted - i posted that picture to show that certain parties in the lifting community think sarcoplasm is "useless", not because i agree with that sentiment. I created the thread to ask what its use actually is, not to piss on it.
 
In the context of strength (since this is an S & C forum) sarcoplasmic hypertrophy will contribute to a strength increase in a similar way as increased volume of a muscle (think creatine monohydrate water weight) will. However, this contribution is minor in comparison to neural efficiency and myofibrillar hypertrophy increases; so obviously the focus should be on the latter if strength is the primary focus.
 
I was actually pondering something similar to this today.

I think this question would be better stated as, how did sarcoplasmic hypertrophy development in an individual help us survive from an evolutionary standpoint? Assuming its not just to get teh babez to make teh kidz.
 
Its because of powerlifting community envy of bodybuilders, so they try to downgrade them.

Bodybuilders who are weak, are weak because they do many isolation work, so they never really get to efficiently use their bodies. The greatest BB have always done compound work, and while they lift a lot less than the best PL, they have a ****load more endurance.

Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy its very useful for most functional sports, its about muscle endurance, it increases the glycogen reserves and the mithocondria, so you get an improved energy reserve.

The reason its frowned, its because everyone is about the 1rm, i can lift more than you and that's it.

Its not useless and in an evolutarionary point of view, its more important, that's why its easier to get.
 
I think it helps with work capacity. The bodybuilding Max-OT once a week per bodypart training theory, was that as you pump your muscle with blood or fluid through high reps, the pump will eventually be so great that you would actually stretch your muscle fascia, the hard casing around muscles, and elicit growth from them. As far as incorporating some sarcoplasmic stuff in your routine, don't bother. Plenty of people have gotten big and strong, or at least reaped the benefits of weight training without concentrating on crap like that.
 
creatine does not cause water retention

Source?

As I understand it, creatine is composed of three amino acids, methionine, arginine and glycine and is taken up into the myocyte. The presence of the solute in solution lowers the intracellular water potential as solute potential is negative, causing the intracellular solution to be < 300mOsm, and drawing water into the myocyte. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Its because of powerlifting community envy of bodybuilders, so they try to downgrade them.

Bodybuilders who are weak, are weak because they do many isolation work, so they never really get to efficiently use their bodies. The greatest BB have always done compound work, and while they lift a lot less than the best PL, they have a ****load more endurance.

Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy its very useful for most functional sports, its about muscle endurance, it increases the glycogen reserves and the mithocondria, so you get an improved energy reserve.

The reason its frowned, its because everyone is about the 1rm, i can lift more than you and that's it.

Its not useless and in an evolutarionary point of view, its more important, that's why its easier to get.

Owned. Owned badly. Yes you can lift more then a bodybuilder but can you lift it for more sets then he can ? Not to mention the esthetically site. Don't bodybuilders then according to this have more functional strength, since in an MMA fight or +90% of other sports you don't just use your muscles to the equivalent of 5 reps and then get to rest for 5 minutes. I'm talking about real bodybuilders who do real compound exercises not 14 year old's doing nothing but bench press and biceps curls.
 
Don't bodybuilders then according to this have more functional strength, since in an MMA fight or +90% of other sports you don't just use your muscles to the equivalent of 5 reps and then get to rest for 5 minutes.

No.
 
Back
Top