sarcoplasme

[drago]

it seem's that today everyone talk about to expand the sarcoplasme, that's the best way to had volume...
they sugest a lot of set with medium weight and short rest. the myofibrils will grow + the sarcoplasme ?
isn'it like a heavy rest-pause and then a wideomaker ?

[homonunculus]

it seem's that today everyone talk about to expand the sarcoplasme, that's the best way to had volume...
they sugest a lot of set with medium weight and short rest. the myofibrils will grow + the sarcoplasme ?
isn'it like a heavy rest-pause and then a wideomaker ?

There is no mention of "sarcoplasmic hypertrophy" in the scientific literature - I've looked dozens of times. It was a concept that Mel Siff first mentioned in his book "Supertraining" as far as I can tell. It has some relevance b/c we can increase glycogen and intramuscular lipid stores and thus fiber size and even bring about mitochondrial biogenesis with resistance training which adds to the sarcoplasmic volume, but these increases have never (that I'm awsare of) been addressed in the context of a training study designed to measure muscle growth or fiber hypertrophy.

You'll find all sorts of intricate explanations of what causes sarcoplasmic hypertrophy as far as reps, but these strategies are simply based upon the basic premise (which is valid) that higher volume training will increase cellular energy stores and mitochondrial content. The *RELATIVE CONTRIBUTION* of tthe increases in mitchondria, water (with glycogen) or triglyceride (aka "sarcoplasminc hypertrophy") vs. that of increased myofibrillar mass has never been quantified based on the underlying concept of differentiating myofibrillar from sarcoplasmic hypetrophy.

Mitochondrial volume density has gone up, down and stayed the same in different resistance training studies. The packing density of the myofibrills themselve does not change according to the studies I've read where it was measured and their spacing is not altered according to some (now old, but good) research by Macdougall, I believe. (I'll have to go dig that up - it's on my other computer).

The point is - among the hundreds and hundreds of studies examining muscle fiber growth, fiber type changes, fiber splitting, etc. with resistance training, sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is not quantified b/c its not considered a basic substantial contribution to the hypertrophic adaptation. It's basically an example of a decent concept that gets mentioned in broscience but not one that is considered relevant in the biological sciences, that i'm aware of.

(Closest thing to this idea with physiological relevance is in studies of stretch overload when muscles becoming inflammed and rapidly increase wet weight substantially after continuous loading for days and weeks, an effect which subsides slowly over time. This is an inflmmatory response - same thing happens with resistance exercise - to the insult of continuous tension requirements imposed in a muscle not at all pre-conditioned for such. Those damn quail are NOT liking the weights, I would imagine... That shit's gotta be irritating as hell...)

-Scott

[mentalflex]

Scott - Not sure how relevant this is, but I was interested in the effect of myofibrillar disruption on muscle size (trying to make some sense of this...).

I read in this study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10958167) that there is greater myofibrillar disruption in the eccentric phase of lifting. With greater myofibrillar disruption I would suspect greater hypertrophy, correct? Could one then say that a greater emphasis on the eccentric portion of a lift (and things like statics and assisted negatives) would generate a greater hypertrophic response than concentric lifting?

[homonunculus]

Scott - Not sure how relevant this is, but I was interested in the effect of myofibrillar disruption on muscle size (trying to make some sense of this...).

I read in this study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10958167) that there is greater myofibrillar disruption in the eccentric phase of lifting. With greater myofibrillar disruption I would suspect greater hypertrophy, correct? Could one then say that a greater emphasis on the eccentric portion of a lift (and things like statics and assisted negatives) would generate a greater hypertrophic response than concentric lifting?

Kris,

This is the one you want to read:

Schoenfeld, B. J. (2012). "Does exercise-induced muscle damage play a role in skeletal muscle hypertrophy?" Journal of strength and conditioning research / National Strength & Conditioning Association 26(5): 1441-1453.
ABSTRACT: Schoenfeld, BJ. Does exercise-induced muscle damage play a role in skeletal muscle hypertrophy? J Strength Cond Res 26(5): 1441-1453, 2012-Exercise-induced muscle damage (EIMD) occurs primarily from the performance of unaccustomed exercise, and its severity is modulated by the type, intensity, and duration of training. Although concentric and isometric actions contribute to EIMD, the greatest damage to muscle tissue is seen with eccentric exercise, where muscles are forcibly lengthened. Damage can be specific to just a few macromolecules of tissue or result in large tears in the sarcolemma, basal lamina, and supportive connective tissue, and inducing injury to contractile elements and the cytoskeleton. Although EIMD can have detrimental short-term effects on markers of performance and pain, it has been hypothesized that the associated skeletal muscle inflammation and increased protein turnover are necessary for long-term hypertrophic adaptations. A theoretical basis for this belief has been proposed, whereby the structural changes associated with EIMD influence gene expression, resulting in a strengthening of the tissue and thus protection of the muscle against further injury. Other researchers, however, have questioned this hypothesis, noting that hypertrophy can occur in the relative absence of muscle damage. Therefore, the purpose of this article will be twofold: (a) to extensively review the literature and attempt to determine what, if any, role EIMD plays in promoting skeletal muscle hypertrophy and (b) to make applicable recommendations for resistance training program design.

(I can email you the paper if you can't get it.)

-S

[mentalflex]

Scott - if you wouldn't mind, can you send me that article?

My school has some issues when it comes to accessing the health and fitness journals....

I really appreciate it. Thanks!

[homonunculus]

Scott - if you wouldn't mind, can you send me that article?

My school has some issues when it comes to accessing the health and fitness journals....

I really appreciate it. Thanks!

Kris,

Send me an email and I'll send it to you.

Your ILL can get anything pretty much, BTW (most folks don't know that...).

-S

[bgreen]

Homonunculus or Mentalflex, would you mind sharing the conclusion the article reaches, I've tried to pull it up online but they want $49.00 for it. I have always thought that my hypertrophic gains have been much greater when I used a very controlled negative and was wondering if this article backs that up or if its all in my head.

Thanks.