PDA

View Full Version : Why does sarcoplasmic recovery take longee?



drudixon
01-25-2012, 05:55 AM
Was curious, why does sarcoplasmic recovery take longer than myofibrilar? Strength training seems to do best with 2x /wk and size best with 1x /wk. I'm basing that on personal experience and on the splits the logs here are using. I understand how they are catabollically different, but not how they are anabolically different. Thx for answer.

ps. sry for title, swype on phone is impossible...

Marius_Ursus
01-25-2012, 06:52 AM
I have to ask a question about "myofibrilar hypertrophy". This is the second time I've seen this term in the O35. In the book Power To The People, Tsatsouline cites some studies and processes whereby the muscles experience sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and/or myofibrilar density. That is the myofibrils grow closer and closer together, which, if I recall correctly (I read the book when I first start weight training, so it's been years.), is a result of CNS training and activation, the body's adaptation to creating conditions to increase contractile strength. The demand for calories and the process by which the myofibrils grow closer together is a much shorter-term and less metabolically demanding process.

For example Power To The People is designed specifically for strength development. You only perform two exercises, the same two, every day for six weeks. It's that repeated lifting at increasing weight daily with a weekly reset that encourages density within the muscle. Day-by-day those myofibrils get closer together as you train. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, as an actual growth process, takes longer because the metabolic demand (the demand for calories) is so much greater, and the biological process of anabolism takes a while as calories and nutrients are distributed by priority. Injury and illness get first dibs. Then comes basic life-sustaining functions. Then down the ladder you get to start building muscle.

Now, again, as far as myofibril hypertrophy is concerned, I don't know anything about that. Never heard of it before a couple months ago when I first saw it on this board, but I'd like to read up on it.

drudixon
01-25-2012, 09:42 AM
I have to ask a question about "myofibrilar hypertrophy". This is the second time I've seen this term in the O35. In the book Power To The People, Tsatsouline cites some studies and processes whereby the muscles experience sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and/or myofibrilar density. That is the myofibrils grow closer and closer together, which, if I recall correctly (I read the book when I first start weight training, so it's been years.), is a result of CNS training and activation, the body's adaptation to creating conditions to increase contractile strength. The demand for calories and the process by which the myofibrils grow closer together is a much shorter-term and less metabolically demanding process.

For example Power To The People is designed specifically for strength development. You only perform two exercises, the same two, every day for six weeks. It's that repeated lifting at increasing weight daily with a weekly reset that encourages density within the muscle. Day-by-day those myofibrils get closer together as you train. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, as an actual growth process, takes longer because the metabolic demand (the demand for calories) is so much greater, and the biological process of anabolism takes a while as calories and nutrients are distributed by priority. Injury and illness get first dibs. Then comes basic life-sustaining functions. Then down the ladder you get to start building muscle.

Now, again, as far as myofibril hypertrophy is concerned, I don't know anything about that. Never heard of it before a couple months ago when I first saw it on this board, but I'd like to read up on it.

Thanks for the awesome reply. I think the term is saying the same thing. It comes from the wikipedia article about hypertrophy. The article goes on to say that myofibrilar hypertrophy adds actual binding sites to the myofibrils, calcium and something else are what the atp binds to (something like that). More binding sites, better, more forceful contraction. So, in that sense, strength training leads to some growth, albeit, not the big volume kind that comes from sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Guess I was wondering, why is it that adding sites to a myofibril is so much "easier" than growing the cellular volume, which your reply helped answer.

Now, to see if you're on spread or not.