|
2004/09/30, 07:45 PM
good question, wondered that myself
|
|
|
|
2004/09/30, 08:01 PM
Well, for arguments sake on hyperplasia, here are some things I have come across... from Dr. Jose Antonio, a leading authority in the world of bodybuilding and physiology....The notion that a particular resistance exercise will cause the entire muscle belly to grow in a uniform manner is at odds with the fact that muscles and muscle fibers are themselves heterogeneous.
An individual muscle is more than just a collection of muscle fibers spanning the entire muscle belly with a single muscle–nerve interaction. Instead, a muscle can be divided into neuromuscular compartments, which are distinct regions of a muscle, each of which is innervated by an individual nerve branch and therefore contains motor unit territories with a unique set of characteristics. In other words, different portions of a muscle may be called into play depending on the task demands of the situation.
These indeed seem to support the idea of hyperplasia occurring.
--------------
If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything....
bb1fit@freetrainers.com
|
|
2004/09/30, 07:11 PM
SOooo... does the post counter for Mr. Null max out at 311?
|
|
2004/09/29, 08:16 PM
if you can lose 1-2 pounds a week dieting how much can you gain if you not exerciseing or doing any cardio?:)
|
|
2004/09/29, 08:26 PM
Fat accumulation I take it you are asking can be put on virtually unimpaired. The only thing that will limit fat accumulation is basically caloric intake. Some will be utilized of course by the muscles and liver, but after that point, all excess should go to fat with varying efficiency.
--------------
If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything....
bb1fit@freetrainers.com
|
|
2004/09/30, 04:29 AM
If you are more interested in how much muscle you can gain, read asimmers "how much muscle in a year, the answer" post
|
|
2004/09/30, 08:19 AM
In some cases of extreme obesity, there is evidence of of fat cell hyperplasia (increased # of cells) in addition to the cell hyertrophy (growth), although this is considered to be pretty unusual.
============
Quoting from cbas1:
Fat cells do not increase in number but they do get bigger when you put on weight (as in fat).
Therefore because the fat cells are larger they are more efficiant at storing fat, so the weight will go back on quicker. You could think of it as fat cells having a momory.
That is why it takes some people years to get fat, then they go on a diet lose it all and then when they come off the diet the weight goes back on within a month or two.
=============
|
|
2004/09/30, 11:11 AM
There are some folks who thing hyperplasia can be acheived with muscle also! Good post ursusarktos. I for one have my doubts as to this happening, but there is some significant research that seems to partially back this up.
============
Quoting from ursusarktos:
In some cases of extreme obesity, there is evidence of of fat cell hyperplasia (increased # of cells) in addition to the cell hyertrophy (growth), although this is considered to be pretty unusual.
=============
--------------
If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything....
bb1fit@freetrainers.com
|
|
2004/09/30, 08:14 PM
Nice pickup...this is in fact undeniable.
============
Quoting from cbas1:
It could also explain the reason that muscle semms to have memory. and can easily be regained after a long period with out traing.
=============
--------------
If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything....
bb1fit@freetrainers.com
|
|
2004/09/30, 10:37 PM
I did it again! :angry::angry: These automatic log outs make it hard to proofread for fear you'll get logged out - then you get logged out anyway!!
I did the same typo again!!! In the sixth paragraph it is supposed to say;
"The type of neuron properly known as an alpha efferent neuron is more commonly referred to as a 'motor neuron'" (not 'motor nerve')
|
|
2004/09/30, 10:42 PM
To tie in what I was asking earlier about the theoretical mechanism of muscle fiber hyperplasia (if it does in fact occur) in a concise way would be;
Are the newly formed muscle fibers thought to develop within an existing motor unit or is a whole new motor unit thought to be created during hyperplasia?
|
|
2004/10/01, 12:19 AM
Good question with a lot of implications. If it where found that an entire new motor unit was able to be created, than it might be able to advance the field of spinal neural injury studies. It would be my guess that due to the slow regeneration of nerves, and difficulty renervating existing motor units, that any hyperplasia would be folded into existing motor units. However, I must admit that it is simply speculation at that.
Interesting. :)
|
|
2004/10/01, 08:51 AM
cbas1,
Hey no problem, I wasn't offended, nor did I mean to offend you. When I reread my post (after it was posted) it ocurred to me that your statements were to provide some reinforcement and clarification for people without a background int this area. :):)
This is why it would be REALLY nice if this site had some sort of feature where the poster could edit their own posts after they've been posted. I'll address your other statements in a subsequent post, lest I become NULL.
|
|
2004/10/01, 09:18 AM
I really should do a quick overview of skeletal muscle structure here so that we're alll using the same terms for the same things;
MUSCLE; a muscle is the whole muscle (such as a biceps brachii or pectoralis major etc..) as it would appear in an anatomical chart. It includes the tendons found at each end of the muscle belly. This muscle is surrounded by a connective tissue sheath known as the EPIMYSIUM which is contiuous with the tendons. The epimysium separates a whole muscle from its neighboring muscles and allows for almost frictionless movement between adjacent muscles.
FASCICLE; A muscle will be subdivided into several subcompartments known as fascicles. Each fascicle will have its own connective tissue sheath as well. This sheath is known as the PERIMYSIUM.
Break before I get nullified!
|
|
2004/10/01, 10:33 AM
WOW:(, I guess one needs to be a scientist to keep up, However they are entertaining. tjcrider, you will see real quick the people who know what they are talking about and the ones that leave you saying to yourself " What the...??". Keep up the good work and good luck with your fitness goals!
--------------
:dumbbell:
Do whats right.
Do the best you can.
And treat others the way you like to be treated.
:dumbbell:
|
|
2004/10/01, 11:28 AM
LOL Keaper, There really is a point to all of this - I will get there shortly.
One thing that needs to be totally clear is that a motor neuron (which nerve cell) supplies several to many individual muscle cells. There is not one individual motor neuron for each individual muscle cell. The motor neuron will split into inividual branches and each of those contact the individual fibers at a structure known as a MOTOR END PLATE.
Once the electrical signal reaches the motor endplate it is then spread throuought the muscle fiber (and its various subcomponents) via a structure within ithe muscle fiber known as the sarcoplasmic reticulum.
To reiterate the idea of the all or none principle, if a motor neuron fires, it will fully activate all of the muscle fibers it supplies and in turn, all of the subcomponents within those muscle fibers (myofibrils, sarcomeres, myofilaments) will be fully activiate and be producing as much tension as they are able.
Now to the point of how this relates to the hypertrophy - hyperplasia issue. (I did promise you a point to all of this didn't I?);
During hypertrophy, the individual muscle cells grow by increasing the number of myofibrils within a given a muscle cell. The individual myofibrils, sarcomeres & myofilaments do not get much if any bigger, but increase in number within the muscle cell. The number of muscle cells do not change however, nor do the number of motor neurons. This would also mean that the number of muscle fibers within motor unit will not change either.
|
|
2004/10/01, 11:41 AM
If hyperplasia were in fact to occur I could think of one of 2 scenarios.
The first is that if the the new muscle fibers were incorporated into an existing motor unit - it would still mean that the the motr neuron supplyin it would still have to develop new terminal end branches along with additional motor end plates. These two processes would have to be coordinated in some way. Would the generation of these new muscle fibers be dependant on the motor neuron's changes? Or would it be independant?
Secondly, if hyperplasia were to involve development of whole new motor units, then whole new motor neurons would also have to be generated. As Daniel astutely indicated, the implications of a process such as this for the field of spinal injury recovery would be staggering.
Hope this makes sense.
|
|
2004/10/01, 12:02 PM
One other thing I neglected to mention in my structural overview was that in addition to the epimysium (of the whole muscle) the perimysium and endomysiums are also continuous with tendons on each side of a muscle's belly.
Also, what BB1 mentioned about the specific roles of individual neuromuscular compartments within a muscle during a gross motor movement is a fascinating yet complex biomechanical issue. It is heavily intertwined with previously mentioned connective tissue coverings as well the architecture of the individual fascicles. There are various fascicular structural arrangements which greatly affect the mechanical properties of a whole muscle.
|
|
2004/10/01, 02:26 PM
Can I get a "what what....." boom chica boom! oops sorry I put this on the wrong post MY BAD!
--------------
:dumbbell:
Do whats right.
Do the best you can.
And treat others the way you like to be treated.
:dumbbell:
|
|
2004/10/01, 05:35 PM
The sources your quoted basically restate what I had stated in my previous posts. Oh and by the way, many of the worlds top scientists are all over this line of research. But breakthroughs don't typically just happen overnight.
|
|
2004/10/01, 05:58 PM
Acutally what you had said earlier is very different from what the sources you just quoted say;
============
Quoting from cbas1:
We are not adding to the number of actual fibers or the actual strands (myofibrils) that make up the fibers, we are adding cells that make the myofibrils that are cilindrical strands that are contained within th fibers.
The motor nuron is atached to the outer sheath of the muscle fiber, so the same motor nuron will stimulate the same fiber it is just that the fiber is bigger because it contains larger myofibrils which are larger because they contain more cells. If I am wrong please put me right but try to keep it simple, I find this a facinating subject and hope between us we might get a little closer to the answer as to wether it does actualy occur in humans or not.
=============
Myofibrils DO NOT contain cells. Myofibrils are components found within a cell.
|
|
2004/10/01, 06:55 PM
All of these studies would seem to make a good case for hyperplasia actually ocurring. These would definitely discount the idea that muscle fibers span from origin to insertion, and you cannot target muscle fibers.
Heron, M.I., and F.J.R. Richmond did extensive research on in-series fiber architecture in human muscles.
Careful examination by them show that the gracilis and sartorius which make up your inner thighs or adductors are made up of very short and in series fibers ( in series or in a chain like fashion).
Wickiewicz, T.L., R.R. Roy, P.L. Powell, and V.R. Edgerton studied the lower body and found that the biceps femorus, the sartorius and semitendinosus muscles are all divided into compartments by 1 or more fibrous bands.
Lindman, R., A. Eriksson, and L.-E. Thornell in two separate studies showed that the kite shaped muscle(trapezius) could be divided into three distinct functional regions from its origin all the way to insertion
Brown, J.M.M., C. Solomon, and M. Paton showed complete functional differences in biceps brachii
English, A.W., S.L. Wolf, and R.L. Segal also did extensive research on Compartmentalization of muscles and their motor nuclei. There findings also showed distinct functional differences in the biceps brachhii, extensor carpi radialis longus and other muscles. And these do not even appear to anatomically to show compartmentalization! Yet, functionally experiments show that different portions of the muscles have specific functions.
Very fascinating stuff. Actual phisology of the muscular structure is at best in its infancy.
--------------
If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything....
bb1fit@freetrainers.com
|
|
2004/10/01, 10:20 PM
Hey there, I'm not trying to flog you, just trying to keep you on the straight and narrow. :) I had no intention to offend or hurt but simply to clarify any discrepancies.
============
Quoting from cbas1:
If I am wrong please put me right but try to keep it simple, I find this a facinating subject and hope between us we might get a little closer to the answer as to wether it does actualy occur in humans or not.
=============
|
|
2004/10/01, 10:22 PM
Yikes, Talk about a thread hijack! Sorry about that tjcrider! :big_smile::big_smile::big_smile:
|
|
2004/10/01, 10:52 PM
Yeah, poor tjcrider...he probably doesn't know what hit him!!:laugh::laugh:
--------------
If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything....
bb1fit@freetrainers.com
|
|
2004/10/01, 10:56 PM
As some on this board know, I have been a proponent of sorts of targeting muscle fibers. This is a very difficult at best task though, considering some slow twitch fibers for example may take up to 50-100 reps to stimulate. This is first off very time consuming, very radical, and to say the least very hard while all the time not really knowing if it is worth it. It is common knowlege that fast twitch fibers have the most ability to adapt to growth, and this is the standard. I myself try to hit some of the fibers at some areas, like biceps insertion and brachialis for instance on a regular basis.
============
Quoting from cbas1:
I dont know about you bb1 but I was a sceptic at the beginning of this thread but I reckon I'm a firm believer at this point.
=============
--------------
If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything....
bb1fit@freetrainers.com
|
|
2004/10/01, 11:25 PM
Reread your post - it is wrong. Pure and simple. You are mixing up 2 totally different meanings of the term 'hyperplasisa' and trying to use them interchangeably. In no way does the source you quoted address or even attempt to address my earlier questions about hyperplasia of muscle cells themselves (not their subcomponents).
Must you get into a fight with every individual on this board over issues you have limited knowledge of?
|
|
2004/10/01, 11:41 PM
Every time you keep reposting those same comments you keep re-proving my statements. Carry on. I'm moving on to other things.
|
|
2004/10/02, 12:13 AM
Hey Thanks, I can be somewhat abrasive at times without really meaning to be. Hopefully this thread is useful to other people as well. And I sure as hell hope it doesn't get wiped out by any moderators! LOL
|
|
2004/10/02, 09:45 PM
Hey guys on page 37 of the spring issue of "Pumped" it explains in detail what you are both debating. Get a copy.
--------------
"A will finds a way, failure is not an option"
Ivan
carivan@freetrainers.com
Montreal Canada
|
|
2004/10/03, 11:26 AM
bb1fit - what does this mean in terms of how many reps/sets for growth? i am currently doing a routine that flies in the face of my schooling for reps/sets. It involves one workout of 25-40 reps, one workout of 15-24 and one workout of 8-12, the workouts rotate every other week, with a repeat 15-24 and 8-12 rep workouts inbetween, This is supposed to give size and also be beneficial as crosstraining.
Am I going to benefit from this? Am I going to burn of hard-gained muscle? Or am i really stimultaing as many different fibers as possible, hopefully leading to maximal gains?
============
Quoting from bb1fit:
As some on this board know, I have been a proponent of sorts of targeting muscle fibers. This is a very difficult at best task though, considering some slow twitch fibers for example may take up to 50-100 reps to stimulate. This is first off very time consuming, very radical, and to say the least very hard while all the time not really knowing if it is worth it. It is common knowlege that fast twitch fibers have the most ability to adapt to growth, and this is the standard. I myself try to hit some of the fibers at some areas, like biceps insertion and brachialis for instance on a regular basis.
=============
--------------
"Achieving worthwhile goals requires a consistent investment of time and effort on your part....The rewards you receive will be in direct proportion to the consistent effort you put forth."
Brian Johnston, The Power of The Champions
|
|
2004/10/03, 12:47 PM
Cbas1, I will leave my opininions out on this, as the subject was already dealt with in a knowledgeable way. Thanks anyway.
--------------
"A will finds a way, failure is not an option"
Ivan
carivan@freetrainers.com
Montreal Canada
|
|
2004/10/03, 04:05 PM
Asimmer...your body has 3 energy system and each has a specific purpose and uses a certain type of fuel source to power it. It is easily (the body) adabptible and can switch from one energy system to another. Your body can make the transition at almost anytime, from your ATP(creatine phosphate) system to the Glycogen-Lactic acid system, and down to the aerobic system. When you start an exercise, all 3 are actually in play, but for the type of work you are doing the one predominately needed will in the end take over. So, it is of utmost importance to build up all 3. What you are doing is fine to this regard. You can do it as you are doing, don't rest too long between bodyparts(days), or you can prioritize a muscle group as I like to do, and really burn up all 3 energy systems on that one muscle group, do a maintenance on the others, and rotate as needed your priority muscles.
--------------
If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything....
bb1fit@freetrainers.com
|
|
2004/10/03, 05:59 PM
Carivan;
Thanks for the tip, will look for the mag article next time at a book store.
Asimmer,
BB1 nailed a very important point that alot of people (even many fitness professionals) fail to grasp. That point is;
While 1 of these 3 energy systems may have the predominant role during a particular exercise portocol, they are (almost always) all involved to some degree.
The one possible execption to this would be in a very short burst of muscular effort (less than 5 seconds) followed by an extended recovery period (at least an hour) before the next effort. In this case you'd be fairly safe to say that the phosphagen (anaerobic-alactic) system is being used exclusively.
|
|
2004/10/03, 06:03 PM
This last example I gave obviously would not be an effective way to strength train.
|
|
2004/10/03, 06:28 PM
Thanks, guys, i just wanted to be sure that the ruotine would be beneficial - I will let you know how it goes. Right now it is total body every workout...
--------------
"Achieving worthwhile goals requires a consistent investment of time and effort on your part....The rewards you receive will be in direct proportion to the consistent effort you put forth."
Brian Johnston, The Power of The Champions
|
|
2004/10/04, 06:16 AM
I agree that's a really important point, Mark and BB1
It seems to be popular misconception that the body uses one source of energy at a time, and completely uses it up before progressing to the next, hence all this nonsense about "exercising on an empty stomach, because you'll have depleted your glycogen so you can start burning fat"
|
|
2004/10/04, 09:45 AM
Or another myth along those same lines; "Don't do cardio at too high of intensity because you'll switch over from burning fat to carbohydrates" As though it were like an on/off switch or something.
While increasing the intensity of cardio may increase the relative contribution of carbs for energy production, it will in no way reduce the amount of fat metabolism.
|
|
2004/10/04, 11:42 AM
Don't get me wrong here, there are valid reasons to moderate the intensity of some types of cardio workouts (such as limiting the accumulation of blood lactate so youd don't curtail the duration of the workout), however the ratio of fat:carbs burned is not a valid reason.
--------------
A wise mans speaks because he has something to say, a fool because he has to say something - Plato
|
|
2004/10/04, 06:30 PM
I was going to leave this post alone after my original post to Asimmer, but with the added posts by krystyfer, I have post on.
Yep, I have to side with krystyfer on this one. You can avoid protein breakdown and should strive to do so...this is where the correct fuel(glycogen) pre workout is a necessity.
And as I mentioned in my original post on this subject to Asimmer, though there is 3 energy system, as stated the predominent one will indeed take over. Witness a glycogen depleting workout. A quick example is if this were not the case, you would never be able to deplete glycogen predominately, as for instance pre contest before carb loading.
============
Quoting from krystyfer:
As long as that predominant source is not protein.
=============
--------------
If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything....
bb1fit@freetrainers.com
|
|
2004/10/04, 10:49 PM
If we definite number of fat cells that doesn't change, just the cells themselves that get larger/smaller. Then what happens during liposuction? Will the remaining fat cells move around and get larger to compensate for the total number of cells going down?
|
|
2004/10/04, 11:03 PM
What are you talking about???
============
Quoting from krystyfer:
Are you serious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This guy thinks he's going to single handedly cure paraplegics and grow new nerve endings onto severed limbs.
Give me a break!!!!
I used to play pretend doctors but I grew out of it.
=============
--------------
A wise mans speaks because he has something to say, a fool because he has to say something - Plato
|
|
2004/10/04, 11:08 PM
Not so much a change in chemical reaction, but a shift in the relative contribution of one type of chemical reaction over another. You will not burn less total fat by training at a higher intensity (as long as the duration of the exercise session remains the same).
============
Quoting from krystyfer:
Not an on and off switch, but a change in chemical reaction.
You can not burn fat at high intensity,(well not very efficiently any-way) so a new system does take over as the predominant energy source. That, I would of thought was where most would use the term switching.
=============
|
|
2004/10/04, 11:17 PM
I believe this post was a bit over the top!!:big_smile:
On a lighter note, I wonder if tjcrider has looked at his post, or dreamt it would get 73 posts and still going!!:laugh::laugh:
============
Quoting from krystyfer:
Are you serious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This guy thinks he's going to single handedly cure paraplegics and grow new nerve endings onto severed limbs.
Give me a break!!!!
I used to play pretend doctors but I grew out of it.
=============
--------------
If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything....
bb1fit@freetrainers.com
|
|
2004/10/04, 11:41 PM
"A bit over the top" is a very tactful way of saying 'astoundingly stupid'. :big_smile:
|
|
2004/10/05, 12:52 AM
Yes, that is exactly the premise behind using HIIT. The less intense intervals allow the blood lactate to get back down to tolerable levels before they are re-elevated during the intense periods. This allows for a much greater volume of high intensity work to be done in a cardio session than continuous high intensity would allow.
============
Quoting from cbas1:
Well isn't that what is meant by High intencity INTERVAL training. short bursts of hight intencity anaerobic exercise, followed by intervals of less intencive aerobics.
=============
|
|
2004/10/05, 05:49 AM
I think I have been misunderstood, my point is that you do not HAVE to be glycogen deplete to burn fat.
============
Quoting from krystyfer:
So do you hang on to your glycogen then when you exercise on an empty stomach??????
The quote you bastardised is correct but it takes protein as well.
=============
|
|
2004/10/25, 06:14 PM
Bump to to augment the 'twitch fibers' thread.
|
