Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy

[gomez26]

Because the distinction is a scientific fact, so that's not surprising. I recognize the difference as well. Who would dispute it exists?

Again though, like earlier in the thread, you missed the message of the post. OP is talking about "the reputation given to it by 'fitness gurus' is a myth." Bodybuilders ought to train 10-12 reps for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Does Zatsiorsky say this or imply this? Even from what you posted it explains the size pricinciple and how myofibrillar hypertrophy occurs using higher reps.

Nobody's disputing it exists, and I'd say no reputable 'fitness guru' (as he put it) would emphasize that one ought to specifically train for it.

yes good point, direction of thread has diverged somewhat.
maximizing 10-12 rep max is great for all hypertrophy combined, both myo & sarco.
but i think they are suggesting sticking to low reps will avoid sarco & give (proportionately) far more myo otherwise they wouldnt even bother mentioning it.
so they are not suggesting 10-12 only gives sarco (as op mentioned some 'gurus' are claiming), but that it gives far too much sarco, even if it does bring with it a lot of myo as well.

i dont think anyone respectable actually thinks u can separate the 2 completely, just that some ranges will proportionately favor it, which is also controversial.

EDIT: others say for strength train in 1-5 RM, for hypertrophy a.k.a sarcoplasmic train in 8-12 RM. So they are basically saying no ounce of strength / myofibrillar increase will happen as soon as a rep count exceeds 5 RM, as if suddenly the body goes, "hey that's more than 5 RM, it's time for Sarcoplasmic non-functional bodybuilder bulk yeay!" BULL****!

either/or mentalities are the most common garden variety on public sites like forums & youtube etc.

[Orlando1234977]

I meant 'gurus' not real GURUS, you know what I mean. Just search on sarcoplasmic hypertrophy you can find a lot of them, even type on youtube, you get the same. My post count is not enough to post a link yet, but have you heard of Visual Impact Muscle Building? That is one perfect example, the very idea of this program is based on myofibrillar hypertrophy vs sarcoplasmic hypertrophy workout.

Do you really think this looks like a reputable source of information? (not gurus, stop getting info from these places dude)

http://visualimpactmusclebuilding.com/

to say that reps higher than 5 becomes 'non-functional bodybuilder bulk' is certainly a myth. I stand by this statement.

Good, I would too. Anybody with any experience what so ever could identify that's not true.

EDIT: others say for strength train in 1-5 RM, for hypertrophy a.k.a sarcoplasmic train in 8-12 RM. So they are basically saying no ounce of strength / myofibrillar increase will happen as soon as a rep count exceeds 5 RM, as if suddenly the body goes, "hey that's more than 5 RM, it's time for Sarcoplasmic non-functional bodybuilder bulk yeay!" BULL****!

I would say rep ranges are in line..

I wouldn't say a.k.a sarcoplasmic after hypertrophy

I'd simply say 1-5 strength for 1RM strength and 8-12 or 6-15 for hypertrophy aka for reasons not exclusive to sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and further myofibrillar hypertrophy and more fibers are typically exhausted.

[Orlando1234977]

either/or mentalities are the most common garden variety on public sites like forums & youtube etc.

very true

[MEGALORD]

I have this one question though, have you noticed that muscle swelling and tightness ( that pumped feeling ) occur easily in a 10 RM but not or almost never in a 1 RM training? If you take bicep curls for example, after a set of pumping you feel your biceps swelling and tightening but if it was a 1 RM bicep curl you do not or feel it so little that it's not alarming. This swelling and pumped feeling lasts for a few days and then you feel as if your biceps have gone a little smaller and you crave that pumped feeling and appearance again so you go back to getting pumped again.

Certainly blood rushes and fuels into the working muscles and then this is from livestrong.com ,"Almost immediately after exercise, white blood cells rush into the muscle to clear up the debris from the muscle damage, producing prostaglandins as a byproduct. Prostaglandins are a hormone-like substance that cause pain and swelling. Along with white blood cells, fluids carrying other nutrients and enzymes rush into the muscle to support the rebuilding process. The extra fluids packed into the muscle also contribute to swelling."

This has been said to be that high reps = sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. What do you guys think? Why is the swelling not significant in a 1RM? Less muscle work or muscle fiber recruitment? I can't say that..anyone?

[pumplikecuming]

I have this one question though, have you noticed that muscle swelling and tightness ( that pumped feeling ) occur easily in a 10 RM but not or almost never in a 1 RM training? If you take bicep curls for example, after a set of pumping you feel your biceps swelling and tightening but if it was a 1 RM bicep curl you do not or feel it so little that it not alarming. This swelling and pumped feeling lasts for a few days and then you feel as if your biceps have gone a little smaller and you crave that pumped feeling and appearance again so you go back to getting pumped again.

Certainly blood rushes and fuels into the working muscles and then this is from livestrong.com ,"Almost immediately after exercise, white blood cells rush into the muscle to clear up the debris from the muscle damage, producing prostaglandins as a byproduct. Prostaglandins are a hormone-like substance that cause pain and swelling. Along with white blood cells, fluids carrying other nutrients and enzymes rush into the muscle to support the rebuilding process. The extra fluids packed into the muscle also contribute to swelling."

This has been said to be that high reps = sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. What do you guys think? Why is the swelling not significant in a 1RM? Less muscle work or muscle fiber recruitment? I can't say that..anyone?

http://www.higher-faster-sports.com/...ionalmyth.html

http://jasonferruggia.com/functional...ct-vs-fiction/

And if you ask another dumb question (yes you are being annoying and asking stupid questions) I will neg you.

[Orlando1234977]

I have this one question though, have you noticed that muscle swelling and tightness ( that pumped feeling ) occur easily in a 10 RM but not or almost never in a 1 RM training?

Getting a pump and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy aren't the same thing.

This has been said to be that high reps = sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. What do you guys think?

No, I think it's just you saying this.

Otherwise give specifics so we can at least see it in context.

[MEGALORD]

Stupid question? Sure when people make stupid claims.

This is from defrancostraining.com:

"Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is an increase in the volume of the non-contractile muscle cell fluid, sarcoplasm. This fluid accounts for 25-30% of the muscle’s size. Although the cross sectional area of the muscle increases, the density of muscle fibers per unit area decreases, and there is no increase in muscular strength (2). This type of hypertrophy is mainly a result of high rep, “bodybuilder-type” training (3)."

Cross sectional area of muscle increases but density of muscle fiber per unit area decreases? And no increase in muscular strength? STUPID RIGHT? Remember I said that they say no strength increase at all simply when rep exceeds 5 RM? And he continues:

"The key to remember is that this type of hypertrophy has little to do with such explosive movements as hitting, running, throwing, jumping or performing a one-rep max. This is why professional bodybuilders, whose training mainly hypertrophies the Type IIA fibers and causes an increase in the non-contractile components of the muscle (sarcoplasmic volume, capillary density, and mitochondria proliferation) are not the fastest or even the strongest of all athletes. This is despite the fact that they generally have more muscle than any other class of athlete! I consider this type of hypertrophy to be form over function."

The key to remember? How about you take that key, shine it up nice and clean, turn it up sideways and stick it straight up your candy ass!! Type llA? Even when taken to failure? What the ****! Think about each step of running, that is a lot of rep sucka! This is despite the fact that bodybuilders generally have more muscle than other athletes? Ever heard of drugs, brother? And he further continues:

"This is why it is imperative for athletes to incorporate maximal strength training methods (1-5 reps), which train the part of the muscle responsible for these explosive contractions, into their routines."

Alright I am gonna start performing 1-5 RM and start excelling in sports! SHUT UP!

[MEGALORD]

This is from Bodybuilding.com article:

"Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (common in bodybuilding) involves the growth of the sarcoplasm (fluid like substance) and non-contractile proteins that do not directly contribute to muscular force production. Filament area density decreases while cross-sectional area increases, without a significant increase in strength."

And check out this video, the application of accentric training for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy on youtube. There is just so many spreading the same thing, even worse.

[SumDumGoi]

No one doubts sarcoplasmic hypertrophy exists. However, your ability to influence sarcoplasmic hypertrophy by using different rep ranges is minimal at best.

[Orlando1234977]

Showing pictures of the moon, and verifying its existence, does not mean I can ride my bike there.
Further, because I can't ride my bike there, doesn't mean it's impossible to get there.
Clear?

[MEGALORD]

What?

[GodfreyW777]

Showing pictures of the moon, and verifying its existence, does not mean I can ride my bike there.
Further, because I can't ride my bike there, doesn't mean it's impossible to get there.
Clear?

You cant really blame him for asking the question though. From the weightlifter's site someone linked earlier-
"However, the greater time under tension in a multiple repetition set increases both non functional hypertrophy and muscular fatigue. Non functional hypertrophy is an increase in the size of the muscle cell's sarcoplasm rather than the actual contractile unit, the sarcomere. This can push a lifter into a heavier weight class without a corresponding increase in strength."
They are clearly implying that you can influence sarcoplasmic hypertrophy by using different rep ranges. Otherwise it would never be even mentioned if it always increases in a fixed proportion to myofibrillar. Its not easy to decide who to believe. They would simply say - limit your overall hypertrophy to avoid being pushed into a heavier weight class. Its pretty clear they believe low reps favor myofbrillar hypertrophy.
So there basically exist many sources claiming to ride their bikes on the moon.

[MEGALORD]

You cant really blame him for asking the question though. From the weightlifter's site someone linked earlier-
"However, the greater time under tension in a multiple repetition set increases both non functional hypertrophy and muscular fatigue. Non functional hypertrophy is an increase in the size of the muscle cell's sarcoplasm rather than the actual contractile unit, the sarcomere. This can push a lifter into a heavier weight class without a corresponding increase in strength."
They are clearly implying that you can influence sarcoplasmic hypertrophy by using different rep ranges. Otherwise it would never be even mentioned if it always increases in a fixed proportion to myofibrillar. Its not easy to decide who to believe. They would simply say - limit your overall hypertrophy to avoid being pushed into a heavier weight class. Its pretty clear they believe low reps favor myofbrillar hypertrophy.
So there basically exist many sources claiming to ride their bikes on the moon.

Thank you, they clearly believe rep range draws the line between myo vs sarco hypertrophy.

[Orlando1234977]

You cant really blame him for asking the question though. From the weightlifter's site someone linked earlier-
"However, the greater time under tension in a multiple repetition set increases both non functional hypertrophy and muscular fatigue. Non functional hypertrophy is an increase in the size of the muscle cell's sarcoplasm rather than the actual contractile unit, the sarcomere. This can push a lifter into a heavier weight class without a corresponding increase in strength."
They are clearly implying that you can influence sarcoplasmic hypertrophy by using different rep ranges. Otherwise it would never be even mentioned if it always increases in a fixed proportion to myofibrillar. Its not easy to decide who to believe. They would simply say - limit your overall hypertrophy to avoid being pushed into a heavier weight class. Its pretty clear they believe low reps favor myofbrillar hypertrophy.
So there basically exist many sources claiming to ride their bikes on the moon.

Read the quote again that you found from a weightlifters site, "the greater time under tension in a multiple repetition set increases both non functional hypertrophy AND muscular fatigue."

This does imply that you can influence sarcoplasmic hypertrophy by using different rep ranges.

[GodfreyW777]

Read the quote again that you found from a weightlifters site, "the greater time under tension in a multiple repetition set increases both non functional hypertrophy AND muscular fatigue."

Sorry to hassle you but I'm afraid I still need your expert literary help.
Which exactly is sarcoplasmic hyp. linked to? The non functional hypertrophy or the muscular fatigue?
I thought it was both. Perhaps my both is not the same as your both.
If there were 3, not just 2 disadvantages of higher reps, would this make it any better? I imagine in this case they would not use the word 'both', maybe they would use 'all of the following' or similar.

This does imply that you can influence sarcoplasmic hypertrophy by using different rep ranges.

Ahh, my bad. Thanks for agreeing with me . Props for covering all bases.

[gomez26]

more tension favors myo
more fatigue favors sarco.
not saying i fully believe it (doesnt seem to be much research specifically into it) but thats what many have claimed, including reputable sources.

[Orlando1234977]

Sorry to hassle you but I'm afraid I still need your expert literary help.
Which exactly is sarcoplasmic hyp. linked to? The non functional hypertrophy or the muscular fatigue?
I thought it was both. Perhaps my both is not the same as your both.
If there were 3, not just 2 disadvantages of higher reps, would this make it any better? I imagine in this case they would not use the word 'both', maybe they would use 'all of the following' or similar.



Ahh, my bad. Thanks for agreeing with me . Props for covering all bases.

(I forgot to write 'not')

Non functional hypertrophy would be sarcoplasmic hypertrophy

Non functional hypertrophy PLUS fatigue would indicate:
Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy PLUS (sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and myo hypertrophy)

All muscle cells have an ability to hypertrophy via myofibrillar and/or sarcoplasmic.. Its really as simple as that.
Large isn't limited to myofibrillar without sarcoplasmic and small isn't limited to sarcoplasmic without myo ability.

Bodybuilders tend to experience more of both.

(Increasing myofibrillar hypertrophy and training to increase a 1RM are not the same)

[GodfreyW777]

Non functional hypertrophy PLUS fatigue would indicate:
Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy PLUS (sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and myo hypertrophy)

(Increasing myofibrillar hypertrophy and training to increase a 1RM are not the same)

I just don't think they would have worded it that way if they didnt believe it.
Zatsiorsky points out that (Re myof hypert) "This type of muscle fiber hypertrophy leads to increased muscle force production." The whole point of making the distinction is that one is useful while the other is not. So of course myof hypert is useful for 1RM, even if the neural skill still has to be practiced.
Personally I dont think there is any significant difference in myof:sarco ratio between rep ranges commonly used in the gym perhaps 5-15. But outside of that I dont see why the ratio couldn't change.

[MEGALORD]

I am happy to find this on wikipedia, something different than all this sarcoplasmic belief:

"Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is characteristic of the muscles of certain bodybuilders while myofibrillar hypertrophy is characteristic of Olympic weightlifters.[15] These two forms of adaptations rarely occur completely independently of one another, one can experience a large increase in fluid with a slight increase in proteins, a large increase in proteins with a small increase in fluid, or a relatively balanced combination of the two. In contrast to this theory it should be noted that when viewed in microscope, muscles are filled entirely by myofibrils, whether or not the muscles from bodybuilders or powerlifters are used. Also, very little actual evidence actually supports that the non-myofibrillar part of the sarcoplasm ever expands.

Antagonists to this theory suggest that the cause of this popular notion is twofold: First, it is derived from fractioning of muscle used when measuring protein synthesis. This is a technique in which muscle proteins are separated biochemically into myofibrillar, sarcoplasmic, membrane and mitochondrial fractions for protein synthesis. This validity of this separation is poorly validated and also, the results of this fractionation and the usual following stable isotope protein synthesis measurement does not tell anything about the relative abundance of these protein fractions (as changes in protein synthesis are by definition relative (i.e. a change of 50% in a substance that constitutes 1% of the muscle is still insignificant in a physiological context). Secondly, the sarcoplasmic/myofibrillar proponents use their theory to explain why bodybuilders have less relative strength than strength athletes. But this theory is not necessary to explain these differences. The physiological changes associated with training with very high volume and degrees of muscle fatigue produce difference neuromuscular adaptations that are different from those experienced by strength training with very high mechanical loads and less muscle fatigue."

[N@tural1]

You can not train for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.. period.. This is a long held myth.

yes you can increase the content of of non contractile proteins glycogen etc.. But from a scientific view this IS NOT sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.

Imagine a glass full of Jelly.. The jelly = sarcoplasm, now drop in some sugar cubes (glycogen) the total volume will increase but the amount of jelly does not.

Hypertrophy of the actual sarcoplasm DOES NOT occur outside of myofibrillar hypertrophy.

[ShaneMK]

First off, highly interesting thread.

Question: With all of this being said, what would your opinions on All Pro's Simple Beginners Routine vs. Starting Strength be? All Pro claims that his routine is more designed towards hypertrophy, since the rep ranges are 8-12 through each cycle. SS is touted for strength gains (and, as far as I have ever read, the program accomplishes this quite well).

Does it really just come down to total workload? i.e. 5 x 100 = 500lbs, versus 10 x 50 = 500 lbs? One appears that they can lift more, but the same amount of work is done, and the body will adapt (size, strength, etc.) based on genetics/nutrition/rest accordingly?

[pumplikecuming]

You can not train for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.. period.. This is a long held myth.

yes you can increase the content of of non contractile proteins glycogen etc.. But from a scientific view this IS NOT sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.

Imagine a glass full of Jelly.. The jelly = sarcoplasm, now drop in some sugar cubes (glycogen) the total volume will increase but the amount of jelly does not.

Hypertrophy of the actual sarcoplasm DOES NOT occur outside of myofibrillar hypertrophy.

I remember when I actually used to argue with N@tural in favor of sarcoplamic hypertrophy, wow I was dumb. Now I can't stand all the bs training in the 8-12 reps for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, and train in th 1-5 for myofibrillar hypertrophy...then training in the 6-8 give you a mix of both.

Its all bs. Protein synthesis builds muscle...and we have known what causes the biggest increases of protein synthesis and its doesn't side with these bs theories, I am just gonna go on a negging rampage to end this shiit.

[N@tural1]

I remember when I actually used to argue with N@tural in favor of sarcoplamic hypertrophy, wow I was dumb. Now I can't stand all the bs training in the 8-12 reps for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, and train in th 1-5 for myofibrillar hypertrophy...then training in the 6-8 give you a mix of both.

Its all bs. Protein synthesis builds muscle...and we have known what causes the biggest increases of protein synthesis and its doesn't side with these bs theories, I am just gonna go on a negging rampage to end this shiit.

I learned a lot from Nwlifter who himself did a lot of research on the subject.

[MEGALORD]

What did you basically learn from Nwlifter?

[MEGALORD]

I remember when I actually used to argue with N@tural in favor of sarcoplamic hypertrophy, wow I was dumb. Now I can't stand all the bs training in the 8-12 reps for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, and train in th 1-5 for myofibrillar hypertrophy...then training in the 6-8 give you a mix of both.

Its all bs. Protein synthesis builds muscle...and we have known what causes the biggest increases of protein synthesis and its doesn't side with these bs theories, I am just gonna go on a negging rampage to end this shiit.

Could you direct me to those threads?

[SumDumGoi]

You can not train for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.. period.. This is a long held myth.

yes you can increase the content of of non contractile proteins glycogen etc.. But from a scientific view this IS NOT sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.

Imagine a glass full of Jelly.. The jelly = sarcoplasm, now drop in some sugar cubes (glycogen) the total volume will increase but the amount of jelly does not.

Hypertrophy of the actual sarcoplasm DOES NOT occur outside of myofibrillar hypertrophy.

First, agreed that sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar hypertrophy occur simultaneously. However, in your example above if you were to increase more glycogen inside of the muscle cell osmotic forces would draw more water into the cell resulting in an increase in the amount of sarcoplasm.

[SumDumGoi]

First off, highly interesting thread.

Question: With all of this being said, what would your opinions on All Pro's Simple Beginners Routine vs. Starting Strength be? All Pro claims that his routine is more designed towards hypertrophy, since the rep ranges are 8-12 through each cycle. SS is touted for strength gains (and, as far as I have ever read, the program accomplishes this quite well).

Does it really just come down to total workload? i.e. 5 x 100 = 500lbs, versus 10 x 50 = 500 lbs? One appears that they can lift more, but the same amount of work is done, and the body will adapt (size, strength, etc.) based on genetics/nutrition/rest accordingly?

This has nothing to do with sarcoplasmic vs. myofibillar hypertrophy. Instead the issue is neurological improvements in strength vs. hypertrophy. Don't get me wrong, both occur simultaneously regardless of rep range, but the reason that 1-5 reps is used more for strength is that you are improving your neurological efficiency (think of it as improving the skill of a 1RM) to a greater extent with heavier weights.

[N@tural1]

First, agreed that sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar hypertrophy occur simultaneously. However, in your example above if you were to increase more glycogen inside of the muscle cell osmotic forces would draw more water into the cell resulting in an increase in the amount of sarcoplasm.

Ok interesting, but wouldn't the water simply be water... ? Not actually "jelly" (sarcoplasm)