Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy

[Little]

Sorry, I read on a faq Myths and FAQ's of Creatine that it doesn't. But after reading some more articles and studies I guess the consensus is that it does.

 

[Dafreeclinic]

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.

Youre right force output has nothing to do with winning MMA fights. This is also why there is no weight classes.

 

[Bennayboi]

Use high reps for muscle growth and low reps for maximum strength. Do both. Fiber types are irrelevant.

 

[Artigo]

Use high reps for muscle growth and low reps for maximum strength. Do both. Fiber types are irrelevant.

You mean eat a lot and pick up heavy shit right?

 

[Indivdude]

People say a lot about sarcoplasmic being lame and what bodybuilders (the stupid ones that don't actually do bodybuilding but curl a lot) have done with it, its understandable. However, at some point, you need more muscle to be able to move more weight. There is a reason why there are weight classes for weightlifting, powerlifting, mma, and so on.

 

[Bennayboi]

You mean eat a lot and pick up heavy shit right?

Rep schemes and weights used are relevant to finding the most effecient manner in which to train. In the long run you will get strong if you eat big and lift heavy, but you could get stronger in that time period with a scheme designed for maximum growth and strength gains.

 

[miaou]

This drawing is completely inaccurate. And I am not even talking about the text, I am talking about the drawing itself.

[...] strength gains are dependent mostly upon increased CNS efficiency to a much greater degree than actual muscle fiber hypertrophy [...]

This is false.

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.

You are in the wrong site.

 

[PCP]

This is false.

Do you have anything to back this up?

 

[PCP]

edit: double post

 

[Indivdude]

Nvm. Editted post. . Moving on.

 

[Tosa]

Do you have anything to back this up?

The ability of muscles to produce force is a combination of the cross sectional area of muscle fibers and the CNS's ability to recruit those muscle fibers. So it's best thought of as muscle fibers X CNS. In which case neither is generally more significant than the other, but in the particular case of addressing a weak point one might be more signifcant.

 

[miaou]

Do you have anything to back this up?

Yes. I try not to make scientific claims that I can't back up.


There have been many studies on this. The first well-known and referenced study was the 1979 Moritani-deVries study:

Neural factors versus hypertrophy in the time course of muscle strength gain.
Moritani T, deVries HA.
Abstract
The time course of strength gain with respect to the contributions of neural factors and hypertrophy was studied in seven young males and eight females during the course of an 8 week regimen of isotonic strength training. The results indicated that neural factors accounted for the larger proportion of the initial strength increment and thereafter both neural factors and hypertrophy took part in the further increase in strength, with hypertrophy becoming the dominant factor after the first 3 to 5 weeks. Our data regarding the untrained contralateral arm flexors provide further support for the concept of cross education. It was suggested that the nature of this cross education effect may entirely rest on the neural factors presumably acting at various levels of the nervous system which could result in increasing the maximal level of muscle activation.

The more recent studies indicate that the time the hypertrophy-related strength gains kick in, is actually earlier than the Moritani-deVries study suggested. All studies agree that by the ~6th week hypertrophy has become the predominant factor in strength gains. Any studies that show neural adaptation to be more significant than hypertrophy are invariably conducted with too short duration to allow for the hypertrophy gains to increase.


This is the figure from the Moritani-deVries study. Keep in mind that the more recent studies show a slightly more significant (and also starting earlier) contribution on behalf of hypertrophy (but I couldn't find any more recent graphs on-line):

 

[Origins]

That seems like a strange chart. Why do hypertrophy and strength completely plateau for such a long time? And what is up with "(Steroids)"?

 

[Indivdude]

That seems like a strange chart. Why do hypertrophy and strength completely plateau for such a long time? And what is up with "(Steroids)"?

And on the chart, neural adaptation looks even but strength and hypertrophy looks like they're going down at the end.

 

[Rod1]

Youre right force output has nothing to do with winning MMA fights. This is also why there is no weight classes.

Talk about missing the point entirely, point out where does he implies or says that force output has no importance in MMA?

He points out that endurance is more important than maximum strength in MMA, so even if you can lift more, if you will gas after 1 minute, its pointless. I come from a combat sport where its actually one throw one win, and we still do more than 5 reps.

Again, the best thing is to do both, one for endurance and one for strength, but to say that sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is useless because there is no accompanied strength increase is idioti, as idiotic as saying that a combat jet shouldn't carry extra fuel tanks because they don't increase the combat capabilities and are a drag.

 

[miaou]

That seems like a strange chart. Why do hypertrophy and strength completely plateau for such a long time? And what is up with "(Steroids)"?

I take it it means that any gains are so slow as to deem them statistically insignificant for the specific timescale. The point is, that the overall contribution of hypertrophy is greater than neural adaptations.

What do you not understand about "(Steroids)"? That part is pretty straight-forward (despite the parenthesis).

 

[miaou]

And on the chart, neural adaptation looks even but strength and hypertrophy looks like they're going down at the end.

That a good observation. That is probably either because the image was scanned improperly (I think there might be a slight tilt), or because it was designed improperly. Unless it takes into account aging, which I don't think is likely.

In any case, the hypertrophy and total strength lines shouldn't be going down. I used that specific graph because it was directly from that particular study. The lines in this graph are probably more accurate:

Edit: actually, this graph probably makes hypertrophy appear more significant than it is. And the two lines don't add up (the total strength line is less than the sum of the other two). Whatever, you get the point!

 

[Indivdude]

Perhaps. It wouldn't be up to scale if it was for aging anyway. I was just perplexed by why it was going down but you're probably right. Its just someone messing up on the scan or something. Wonder where that chart is in a journal though.

 

[miaou]

I feel the need to add, that the time course and magnitude of contributions in the above graph also depend on the neuromuscular complexity of each exercise.

For example, it has been observed that hypertrophy significance is delayed in muscle groups participating in more complex multijoint exercises in comparison to single-joint movements. It makes sense that the same would happen between less complex and more complex multijoint movements (although I haven't seen a specific study for this last one).

 

[Origins]

I take it it means that any gains are so slow as to deem them statistically insignificant for the specific timescale. The point is, that the overall contribution of hypertrophy is greater than neural adaptations.

What do you not understand about "(Steroids)"? That part is pretty straight-forward (despite the parenthesis).

That other chart looks more accurate. The first one implied that past a certain point no one can gain any strength at all.

Did they give one group steroids after a certain time period in the actual study? Or did the creators of that chart just throw in hypothetical steroids? What I am saying is that it just seems out of place on that chart. It makes it seem more like an explanation of steroid use than neural adaptation vs. hypertrophy.