Article: sarcoplasmic hypertrophy

[SuffolkPunch]

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/sa...ophy-relevant/

This piece about a recent sarcoplasmic hypertrophy study shows that it is likely to be a real phenomenon. However, nothing is without nuance. The study had low statistical power and much of the piece is Greg's conjecture on the topic.

Bottom line: it's unlikely to be a large effect in anyone and the mythical "huge weak bodybuilder" remains a myth as far as I'm concerned.

In fact, the sarcoplasm storage is thought to be an adaptation to certain types of exercise - which could in fact mean that bodybuilder training could well be superior to heavy lifting for some sports where a repeated anerobic effort is required.

[Oleg1975K]

Good post!
I do not know why the existence of myofibrillar hypertrophy and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, Western scholars have written down in the science of bro. In Russian textbooks on sports physiology and related disciplines for professional trainers, it did not disappear anywhere.
From Professor J. Kotz in the late 70s to Professor A. Samsonova today. Verkhoshansky and Issurin have about this.
Professor, Doctor of Biological Sciences Volkov, one of the founders of modern methods of interval training, even actively used terms such as “myoglobin training” (for mitochondrial hypertrophy), “lactate training” (to increase glycogen capacity) and “alactate training” (for to increase creatine phosphate capacity).

[sqal]

That sounds like a brutal squat program. So instead of upping the weights every week they just had extra sets or do you think they change the weights at all?

[Heisman2]

Maybe I've been under a rock but I've thought for 15 years that sarcoplasmic hypertrophy was a well established phenomenon; I had no idea it had fallen out of favor. Perhaps this is a nomenclature thing though; in the second full paragraph he mentions that if he fiber grows and the actin/myosin concentration stays the same that is "myofibrillar hypertrophy"; I'd argue that implies both the myofibrillar portion and sarcoplasmic portion hypertrophies.

Based on this write up I'm skeptical this changes anything; n=15 for only 6 weeks, a potential outlier, and in the sub-sample of 7 who had an additional week's rest prior to final measurement if I'm understanding correctly (I may not be) the cross sectional area tended to decrease with the week off but the sarcoplasmic proteins increased and the actin/myosin concentrations decreased with no change in fluid or glycogen content. The sub-sample measurements don't make sense; if fiber size decreased while fluid stayed the same and the myosin/actin concentrations decreased that that would imply the absolute amount of myosin/actin proteins went down. If the sarcoplasmic proteins tended to increased while cross sectional area decreased then that wouldn't explain in any way how sarcoplasmic hypertrophy could increase muscle size, but would rather suggest sarcoplasmic proteins have no relationship with muscle size. I find it much more likely that the sample size is too small with imprecise measurements and thus no significant conclusions can be drawn.

[SuffolkPunch]

Yeah, for a long time, it was assumed that sarcoplasm increases were always in proportion to the myofibrillar increases and that size vs. strength differences were largely down to leverages or amount of glycogen stored by high vs. low reps.

I was confused reading this because it did sound like they were talking about loss of myosin/actin - so atrophy, not hypertrophy. It's hard to conclude anything other than going from heavy to not heavy training means you'll lose some contractile tissue even if size is not lost.

[Heisman2]

Yeah, for a long time, it was assumed that sarcoplasm increases were always in proportion to the myofibrillar increases and that size vs. strength differences were largely down to leverages or amount of glycogen stored by high vs. low reps.

I was confused reading this because it did sound like they were talking about loss of myosin/actin - so atrophy, not hypertrophy. It's hard to conclude anything other than going from heavy to not heavy training means you'll lose some contractile tissue even if size is not lost.

I still think that strength differences are mostly neuromuscular (fiber recruitment and associated variables) as well as joint mechanics (golgi tendon organ disinhibition, myotatic reflex, etc) when you see people who are similar size but very different strength. Underlying structure (tendon attachment points) probably also play a big role. My guess is actual muscle differences don't make a huge change for similar CSA; perhaps alterations in pennation angle would make some difference and I'm sure there are other aspects that aren't coming to mind right now. I used to know this stuff better but haven't reviewed the literature on these topics in the last few years.

Greg was talking about concentrations the whole piece I believe (same myosin/actin amount with an increase in fiber cross sectional area will lead to a decrease in concentration without atrophy). The fact the 1 week follow-up measurements indicates possible atrophy more points to me that the same size is too small or the measurements are too imprecise as it doesn't seem physiologically plausible to me that they would undergo actual atrophy of contractile protein in only 1 week. If they actually did I feel that would be the most interesting finding of the study, lol.

[John Prophet]

I like the "evidence based" crowd but sometimes there is some tail chasing that goes on. I mean...true is true whether or not there has been a study to show it. The limitations of studies should be apparent to all

I have the book "Bodybuilding: A Scientific Approach" by Fred Hatfield, which originally came out in about 1984...long before Greg Nuckols was born lol. It goes into the different aspects of muscle size such as myofibrillar, sarcoplasmic etc etc and gives suggestions for how to train each aspect.

Fred called it "holistic training"


As u get older u have to chuckle at the science crowd sometimes. It gets to be like fashion. "oh wait, is sarcoplasmic hypertrophy a thing again?". "oh no, so and so had that paper where he proved it doesnt exist". "oh, I thought the other so and so had that paper where Tibetan monks had increased sarcoplasm during every 3rd leap year?"

[Oleg1975K]

I think the debate continues to go on because there is a definite relationship between these two aspects of hypertrophy. Limit numbers (ratio), as far as I remember, are some of these:
For types 1 75/25
For types 2B 85/15
For types 2A, the value seems to be somewhere in the middle.

[etet1919]

Is anyone a little confused over what constitutes bodybuilding training compared to "recreational lifter" training, as of late? In my gyms, I see all demographics (including special populations, competitive athletes at varying levels, soccer moms, powerlifters, etc.) using similar amount of sets (volume), working in all rep ranges and spending, on average, an hour's worth of lifting a few times a week on a consistent basis. Same exercises, more or less. We all say we put in the required effort, or intensity, as well.

So, what's the new established difference between true (classic?) bodybuilding and weight training? Is it namely appearance, in order to classify people? If well-structured programs are all geared towards increasing hypertrophy and strength, and most follow them to the best of their abilities, then how do we objectively account for a great variance of results, especially if experience levels are taken into consideration?

[Heisman2]

Is anyone a little confused over what constitutes bodybuilding training compared to "recreational lifter" training, as of late? In my gyms, I see all demographics (including special populations, competitive athletes at varying levels, soccer moms, powerlifters, etc.) using similar amount of sets (volume), working in all rep ranges and spending, on average, an hour's worth of lifting a few times a week on a consistent basis. They'll say they put in the required effort, or intensity, as well.

So, what's the new established difference between true (classic?) bodybuilding and weight training? Is it namely appearance, in order to classify people? If well-structured programs are all geared towards increasing hypertrophy and strength, and most follow them to the best of their abilities, then how do we objectively account for a great variance of results, especially if experience levels are taken into consideration?

Nutrition is a huge variable, as is genetics. A third factor is intensity (meaning effort put into the lifting, not percentage of one-rep-max); I cannot tell you how many people over the years I've seen in gyms not train really hard and not get good results.

I think a lot of people underestimate the importance of genetics. That should never be a cop out for not working hard and not making progress, but it's going to be a huge factor in determining how far one can go.

[John Prophet]

Is anyone a little confused over what constitutes bodybuilding training compared to "recreational lifter" training, as of late? In my gyms, I see all demographics (including special populations, competitive athletes at varying levels, soccer moms, powerlifters, etc.) using similar amount of sets (volume), working in all rep ranges and spending, on average, an hour's worth of lifting a few times a week on a consistent basis. Same exercises, more or less. We all say we put in the required effort, or intensity, as well.

So, what's the new established difference between true (classic?) bodybuilding and weight training? Is it namely appearance, in order to classify people? If well-structured programs are all geared towards increasing hypertrophy and strength, and most follow them to the best of their abilities, then how do we objectively account for a great variance of results, especially if experience levels are taken into consideration?

I guess you have to first understand that a large % of people in the gym have no clue what they are doing. Tons of people just look around and see what others are doing. Others walk into the gym and say "gee, what do I feel like doing today?" So you have to factor all of those people in and then its no wonder that most of what you see in the gym makes no sense. This is also why u might see football players doing bench and curls....which might not have anything to do with their sport


Id say a few things separate "weight enthusiasts" or "gym rats" from "bodybuilders".

1) as mentioned above. Nutrition. This is the one that has killed me for years and also why id never refer to myself as a bodybuilder. In my adult life I have always been above 25 or 30% bodyfat. So it didnt matter how strong I got or how dedicated to the lifting aspect i was...I was never going to look like a bodybuilder. My goal right now, at 52 years old, is to look like a bodybuilder. So i am cutting lol. Gonna take a soild 18 to 24 months at least.

and lets get real, this is also why a lotta people go into powerlifting or strongman or other activities where u can eat whatever

2) attention to detail. a gym rat is gonna do chest/arms and maybe a touch of this or that other stuff. He aint gonna think about rear delts or the various different muscles in the back. Only a bodybuilder is going to come in and do 10 hard sets for calves at the beginning of a workout

3) effort levels. No pain no gain. How many soccer moms or casual gym goers do u actually see working hard? how many actually have to recover between sets? how many ever even make a pain face lol. how many are ever out of breath? I think a lot of gym goers think that there is some sort of magic in the machines or just in going thru the motions of certain exercises. There is no magic without crazy effort levels. Think about how many people have never actually trained to failure AT ALL. (im no heavy advocate of failure training but u get my point)

[Nwlifter]

Greg did a great job of summarizing and explaining IMO.
1) Some studies have seen fibril ratio increase that = more actin/myosin growth compared to sarcoplasmic protein increases
2) Some have seen ratio's more equal
3) This one showed the 'ratio' decrease, which Greg explained didn't mean fibril atrophy, it meant sarcoplasmic increases at a much higher amount than actin/myosin increases.
4) Many studies show 'specific tension' lowers with fiber size increases. Since fiber tension is directly proportional to cross bridges in parallel, this means many bodybuilders do have a higher 'non contractile' protein content ratio than untrained ('normal' comp) people.

It may not be something that adds inches to our arms, in and of itself, but it does explain how really low rep, low volume trainees might get a lot more 'strength per size' increase over more bodybuilding type methods. If fibrils increase by 20% and sarcoplasmic goes up 10% and that improves muscle size, vs a 20% fibril and 20% sarcoplasmic protein increase, that's theoretically 1,5x the size gain...........

(from linked page on ratios)
To be clear, contractile protein content didn’t decrease. In chemically stained fibers, the amount of actin per fiber didn’t significantly change. However, no change in actin coupled with an increase in fiber size led to a decrease in actin concentrations. Also worth noting, pre-training and after three weeks of training, total actin content was closely associated with fiber cross-sectional area (r2 = 0.815 pre-training and 0.867 after three weeks of training). However, post-training, there was no longer a significant relationship between actin content and fiber cross-sectional area (r2 = 0.160; p = 0.22).

And on specific tension (tension to size ratio of a fiber reveals fiber comp)

The force a muscle fiber can produce per unit of cross-sectional area (also known as “specific tension”) should scale linearly with its myofibrillar protein density. So, if we see single-fiber force output increasing more than fiber cross-sectional area, we can assume that myofibrillar density is increasing, and if we see single-fiber force output increasing slower than fiber cross-sectional area, we can assume that myofibrillar density is decreasing.

According to a recent meta-analysis from Dankel et al (8), fiber specific tension generally increases with training, meaning force output increases faster than cross-sectional area. For type I fibers, across 15 studies, force increased by 17.5% while cross-sectional area increased by 6.7%, while for type IIa fibers, across 14 studies, force increased by 17.7%, while cross-sectional area increased by 12.1% (though it’s worth noting that this wasn’t a significant difference; however, the two realistic options based off the nominal differences are an increase in specific tension or no change in specific tension, but a decrease doesn’t seem to be realistic). So, it’s clear across multiple studies that sarcoplasmic hypertrophy can occur, but it’s also clear that most research finds that a disproportionate increase in myofibrillar protein density is actually more likely with training.

[John Prophet]

how is this different from what used to be called "spinning" waaaay back in the day. Like where guys would do hours of pump type exercises every day to try to stay swole. Im talking even back to the 20s,30s,40s eras.

There was that one story of the guy who came to America from Europe and he didnt have access to weights on the boat trip over so he refused to show his muscles in public until he was able to go to the gym to reinflate himself lol




on a related note, lately i see where short rest periods are supposedly falling out of favor with the "evidence based" crowd. Well its interesting because I have always been one to really take my time and try to fully recover between sets etc. Lately though i have been making a conscious effort to limit myself to 90 to 120 secs on bench, 90 secs between sets on back stuff, 60 secs for stuff like delt laterals and all arm work.

So now that I am forcing myself to go faster, I start hearing that all of a sudden short rest periods r being frowned upon. The reasons being given are along the lines of you wont be fully recovered so u wont get all the reps u could get on the next set which will impact your overall volume etc etc. Well no duh. I thought the whole purpose of shorter rest periods was to MAKE SURE u DIDNT recover fully lol.

I thought that in general these shorter rest periods would lead to a more sarcoplasmic type of hypertrophy. Am I correct or am I thinking more of increased blood supply (plumbing) and maybe mitochondrial aspects?

for instance 4 sets might break down like this with the different rest periods:

2:00 rest between sets. 140x10, 140x10, 140x9, 140x8

1:00 rest between sets. 140x10, 140x8, 130x9, 120x8

yeah i understand that the first sequence has more overall volume and more reps done at higher %1rm etc, BUT wont the second sequence have advantages that balance off the effectiveness.

I mean, i can do a 5x5 with 5 minutes rest, recovering fully between sets, and never ever get a pump. is that supposed to be ideal now? lol

[Nwlifter]

how is this different from what used to be called "spinning" waaaay back in the day. Like where guys would do hours of pump type exercises every day to try to stay swole. Im talking even back to the 20s,30s,40s eras.

There was that one story of the guy who came to America from Europe and he didnt have access to weights on the boat trip over so he refused to show his muscles in public until he was able to go to the gym to reinflate himself lol




on a related note, lately i see where short rest periods are supposedly falling out of favor with the "evidence based" crowd. Well its interesting because I have always been one to really take my time and try to fully recover between sets etc. Lately though i have been making a conscious effort to limit myself to 90 to 120 secs on bench, 90 secs between sets on back stuff, 60 secs for stuff like delt laterals and all arm work.

So now that I am forcing myself to go faster, I start hearing that all of a sudden short rest periods r being frowned upon. The reasons being given are along the lines of you wont be fully recovered so u wont get all the reps u could get on the next set which will impact your overall volume etc etc. Well no duh. I thought the whole purpose of shorter rest periods was to MAKE SURE u DIDNT recover fully lol.

I thought that in general these shorter rest periods would lead to a more sarcoplasmic type of hypertrophy. Am I correct or am I thinking more of increased blood supply (plumbing) and maybe mitochondrial aspects?

for instance 4 sets might break down like this with the different rest periods:

2:00 rest between sets. 140x10, 140x10, 140x9, 140x8

1:00 rest between sets. 140x10, 140x8, 130x9, 120x8

yeah i understand that the first sequence has more overall volume and more reps done at higher %1rm etc, BUT wont the second sequence have advantages that balance off the effectiveness.

I mean, i can do a 5x5 with 5 minutes rest, recovering fully between sets, and never ever get a pump. is that supposed to be ideal now? lol

I guess the difference is, sarcoplasmic 'hypertrophy' isn't going to fade overnight where you have to 'pump up' , pumping up of course pumps you up 'more' but sarcoplasm is a protein, some mistake it for water/fluid/swelling etc.

I agree, I see better growth with short rests and worse growth with long rests between sets. I think the longer rest stuff is a new 'fad' idea. I actually like 30 second rests aka Gironda's method.

[John Prophet]

well i find it somewhat odd that the evidence based crowd would start leaning towards longer rest periods since they also tend to lean towards high volume. i mean, 30 sets per workout with 2-3 minutes rest is going to start to be a longgg workout

now back when i was doing sheiko I didnt blink at doing a 3 hr workout but lately im doing 2 a days where I might do from 13-18 worksets and trying to get those worksets done in like 45-55 minutes...go home, eat, rest, come back and do it again. Im really loving the shorter yet more focused and intense workouts

another BIG benefit to shorter rest periods is that it actually forces u to use some lighter weights. I started getting killer forearm pain in my bicep movements and going to 60 secs rest has helped because it keeps the overall weight load down

[PurmaBulker1984]

Nutrition is a huge variable, as is genetics. A third factor is intensity (meaning effort put into the lifting, not percentage of one-rep-max); I cannot tell you how many people over the years I've seen in gyms not train really hard and not get good results.

I think a lot of people underestimate the importance of genetics. That should never be a cop out for not working hard and not making progress, but it's going to be a huge factor in determining how far one can go.

True on all accounts. Almost any Male can get to a 225 bench in their life time. 1 in 100 will get to 315 because its either out of their generic reach or the amount of work and discipline is extreme. Then for some its 2 years, for some it's a shot. BB requires you be one and/or both of those last 2.

[dazitmayn]

well i find it somewhat odd that the evidence based crowd would start leaning towards longer rest periods since they also tend to lean towards high volume. i mean, 30 sets per workout with 2-3 minutes rest is going to start to be a longgg workout

now back when i was doing sheiko I didnt blink at doing a 3 hr workout but lately im doing 2 a days where I might do from 13-18 worksets and trying to get those worksets done in like 45-55 minutes...go home, eat, rest, come back and do it again. Im really loving the shorter yet more focused and intense workouts

another BIG benefit to shorter rest periods is that it actually forces u to use some lighter weights. I started getting killer forearm pain in my bicep movements and going to 60 secs rest has helped because it keeps the overall weight load down

have you tried myo-rep or rest-pause protocols? Those might be right up your alley if you are trying to actively cut down time and use shorter rest periods. Believe it or not there's actually evidence that it is actually a very good training method despite it being at least on the surface contrary to longer rest periods.

[dazitmayn]

also another interesting take on sarcoplasmic hypertrophy from lyle mcdonald

https://bodyrecomposition.com/traini...ertrophy.html/

[Nwlifter]

well i find it somewhat odd that the evidence based crowd would start leaning towards longer rest periods since they also tend to lean towards high volume. i mean, 30 sets per workout with 2-3 minutes rest is going to start to be a longgg workout

now back when i was doing sheiko I didnt blink at doing a 3 hr workout but lately im doing 2 a days where I might do from 13-18 worksets and trying to get those worksets done in like 45-55 minutes...go home, eat, rest, come back and do it again. Im really loving the shorter yet more focused and intense workouts

another BIG benefit to shorter rest periods is that it actually forces u to use some lighter weights. I started getting killer forearm pain in my bicep movements and going to 60 secs rest has helped because it keeps the overall weight load down

I agree on all points
no way I'm doing a 3 hour workout, e-freaken-gads, no thanks.
I like a bit lighter weights too, growth is just as good, pain is way less!

[John Prophet]

have you tried myo-rep or rest-pause protocols? Those might be right up your alley if you are trying to actively cut down time and use shorter rest periods. Believe it or not there's actually evidence that it is actually a very good training method despite it being at least on the surface contrary to longer rest periods.

have heard of them but not tried yet. They may not work for me because im one of those "write down everything" tracking nerd types. I like everything to be planned out and structured in such a way that I can easily try to beat it next time etc etc. Some of the higher intensity methods are just too unwieldy to track etc

[Nwlifter]

have heard of them but not tried yet. They may not work for me because im one of those "write down everything" tracking nerd types. I like everything to be planned out and structured in such a way that I can easily try to beat it next time etc etc. Some of the higher intensity methods are just too unwieldy to track etc

I use something similar, and track it in my logs (I'm that way too, I have every rep of every workout in notebooks all the way back to 1986 or so). Back in the 90's, long before myo-reps were 'invented', I was using what I just called non failure rest pause which really turns out to be the same thing. I always just use a stop watch, set, 20 seconds reps, 20 seconds, reps. Write it all down.
I think there is a study showing effects of rest pause were pretty similar to 'regular sets' but way less time consuming.

[John Prophet]

I use something similar, and track it in my logs (I'm that way too, I have every rep of every workout in notebooks all the way back to 1986 or so). Back in the 90's, long before myo-reps were 'invented', I was using what I just called non failure rest pause which really turns out to be the same thing. I always just use a stop watch, set, 20 seconds reps, 20 seconds, reps. Write it all down.
I think there is a study showing effects of rest pause were pretty similar to 'regular sets' but way less time consuming.

yeah I could see application for something like that. for instance lets say I wanted to focus on calves and side delts. Well then id put my stronger bodyparts on the back burner and perhaps only do a few Myo-rep type sets for them during the week to just maintain them....while leaving the rest of my time and focus to the calves and delts.


of course my overall theory is that increased work = growth. of course does any1 know what the limits are? who knows. but lets say we aim to build up to 30 sets of calves per week. Well then there is the matter of "at what intensity?" 30 sets to around 1 rep from failure is a prodigious workload IMO. That may be 10 sets 3x per week etc. But then u can start to think about adding intensity methods etc

since ive only been back into the gym seriously for like 6 months after a 5-7 year layoff, im not messing with any intensity stuff yet (not that I ever was a big fan of it). but I can see a possible future application once ive built my calf workload up to a large level. at some point it would be silly to add more sets so maybe each set would have to start becoming more intense. But im a ways from that so far. I think on my biggest weak, before a deload, I did 20 sets of calves. So I still have a ways to go on volume alone

[Nwlifter]

yeah I could see application for something like that. for instance lets say I wanted to focus on calves and side delts. Well then id put my stronger bodyparts on the back burner and perhaps only do a few Myo-rep type sets for them during the week to just maintain them....while leaving the rest of my time and focus to the calves and delts.


of course my overall theory is that increased work = growth. of course does any1 know what the limits are? who knows. but lets say we aim to build up to 30 sets of calves per week. Well then there is the matter of "at what intensity?" 30 sets to around 1 rep from failure is a prodigious workload IMO. That may be 10 sets 3x per week etc. But then u can start to think about adding intensity methods etc

since ive only been back into the gym seriously for like 6 months after a 5-7 year layoff, im not messing with any intensity stuff yet (not that I ever was a big fan of it). but I can see a possible future application once ive built my calf workload up to a large level. at some point it would be silly to add more sets so maybe each set would have to start becoming more intense. But im a ways from that so far. I think on my biggest weak, before a deload, I did 20 sets of calves. So I still have a ways to go on volume alone

ok good points
Just to note though, I don't consider these 'intense' sets, I use the same 'effort' per se as I would with 3-4 normal sets, just do a set, 1-2 RIR, rest 20 seconds, do more reps, rest 20, etc.

[Heisman2]

This review makes me feel somewhat better about my belief stated above that sarcoplasmic hypertrophy had not fallen out of flavor: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6423469/

One quote from the review:

"For decades, it has been assumed that the deposition of sarcomeres in parallel in existent myofibrils, or the genesis of new myofibrils in existent muscle fibers results in the observed expansion of fCSA and macroscopic assessments of muscle size in response to RT interventions. However, it is clear from the above data that this assumption lacks consistent and explicit empirical support. After performing an extensive search of the scientific literature, it is apparent that no studies have directly quantified sarcomere number in parallel prior to or following resistance training in human fibers. Furthermore, the few studies employing TEM methods to provide myofibril densities were severely underpowered having analyzed few fibers and few subjects, and although critical first steps, do not allow confident population-wide inferences. Strikingly, of the available evidence surveyed wherein molecular and microscopic measurements occurred prior to and following resistance training, a reduction in myofibrillar protein concentrations concomitant to observed increases in fCSA has been a more common finding. According to the widely assumed model of resistance training-induced hypertrophy, a maintenance of myofibrillar protein concentration should coincide with an increase in fCSA. Moreover, this occurrence should produce an increase in macroscopic measures of muscle size including muscle thickness, muscle mass, and muscle volume. Yet, the current state of the evidence tells a different and relatively inconsistent story"

True, that doesn't necessarily mean the "missing hypertrophy" is sarcoplasm related persay, but the general point that hypertrophy can occur without myofibril (or myofibrillar protein) accretion seems to have been seen in several studies previously.

On a side note, should this really be how I spend my Thanksgiving??? (I'm "living my best life" so no complaints here.)

[Nwlifter]

This review makes me feel somewhat better about my belief stated above that sarcoplasmic hypertrophy had not fallen out of flavor: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6423469/

One quote from the review:

"For decades, it has been assumed that the deposition of sarcomeres in parallel in existent myofibrils, or the genesis of new myofibrils in existent muscle fibers results in the observed expansion of fCSA and macroscopic assessments of muscle size in response to RT interventions. However, it is clear from the above data that this assumption lacks consistent and explicit empirical support. After performing an extensive search of the scientific literature, it is apparent that no studies have directly quantified sarcomere number in parallel prior to or following resistance training in human fibers. Furthermore, the few studies employing TEM methods to provide myofibril densities were severely underpowered having analyzed few fibers and few subjects, and although critical first steps, do not allow confident population-wide inferences. Strikingly, of the available evidence surveyed wherein molecular and microscopic measurements occurred prior to and following resistance training, a reduction in myofibrillar protein concentrations concomitant to observed increases in fCSA has been a more common finding. According to the widely assumed model of resistance training-induced hypertrophy, a maintenance of myofibrillar protein concentration should coincide with an increase in fCSA. Moreover, this occurrence should produce an increase in macroscopic measures of muscle size including muscle thickness, muscle mass, and muscle volume. Yet, the current state of the evidence tells a different and relatively inconsistent story"

True, that doesn't necessarily mean the "missing hypertrophy" is sarcoplasm related persay, but the general point that hypertrophy can occur without myofibril (or myofibrillar protein) accretion seems to have been seen in several studies previously.

On a side note, should this really be how I spend my Thanksgiving??? (I'm "living my best life" so no complaints here.)

interesting, hadn't seen that before

[John Prophet]

ok good points
Just to note though, I don't consider these 'intense' sets, I use the same 'effort' per se as I would with 3-4 normal sets, just do a set, 1-2 RIR, rest 20 seconds, do more reps, rest 20, etc.

yeah, those are more like "3 sets in 1 set" type of things so its not as intense as going to actual failure or even beyond failure. of course if u did 3 of THOSE sets then the effect would be more like 9 sets worth

I was just sort of musing out loud about my possible path for calves since I have sort of decided I need to have 17" calves no matter what else life brings me. currently sitting at maybe 16 left and 15.75 rt. I want to plot out about a years worth of training where it just gradually increases the workload on the calves. Id sort of like to do it with just regular sets going near to failure. id like to exhaust that first and build to, say, 20 sets per week for maybe a few months and see what happens there. But then there is the question of "is that it?"...because one can always start in with things like burns/drop sets/negatives on one leg at a time etc etc. But id rather give the 20 regular sets per week a chance first before I get too froggy with other stuff


and TBH the 20 sets per week is just a recommendation from Mike Israetel based on this vid lol. for all I know I can do 30 per week. Who knows

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISeP...v8Q77&index=12

[Nwlifter]

yeah, those are more like "3 sets in 1 set" type of things so its not as intense as going to actual failure or even beyond failure. of course if u did 3 of THOSE sets then the effect would be more like 9 sets worth

I was just sort of musing out loud about my possible path for calves since I have sort of decided I need to have 17" calves no matter what else life brings me. currently sitting at maybe 16 left and 15.75 rt. I want to plot out about a years worth of training where it just gradually increases the workload on the calves. Id sort of like to do it with just regular sets going near to failure. id like to exhaust that first and build to, say, 20 sets per week for maybe a few months and see what happens there. But then there is the question of "is that it?"...because one can always start in with things like burns/drop sets/negatives on one leg at a time etc etc. But id rather give the 20 regular sets per week a chance first before I get too froggy with other stuff


and TBH the 20 sets per week is just a recommendation from Mike Israetel based on this vid lol. for all I know I can do 30 per week. Who knows

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISeP...v8Q77&index=12

Yes true for sure... 3 sets like that, that'd be el DOMS o'rama lol I just do one with as many 'rest pauses' as needed, kinda the myo rep idea, first set activation, the rest is just good reps after.

ha cool, 17 inch calves, awesome. Hope you get those, sounds like you will! 20 a week, that's gotta do it man!

[John Prophet]

Yes true for sure... 3 sets like that, that'd be el DOMS o'rama lol I just do one with as many 'rest pauses' as needed, kinda the myo rep idea, first set activation, the rest is just good reps after.

ha cool, 17 inch calves, awesome. Hope you get those, sounds like you will! 20 a week, that's gotta do it man!

yeah, thats why i can see an application for those rest pause type sets actually for stronger bodyparts that were just being maintained. Like chest for instance. You could literally do a few decent warm up sets and then do maybe 2 myo rep type sets and be done. Maybe later in the week do the same on incline and thats that. If u did that approach for, say, chest and back, then you have freed up a lot of time to work on everything else.

yeah, the calves. Always been a weak point for me. drastic measures for drastic times lol

[Nwlifter]

yeah, thats why i can see an application for those rest pause type sets actually for stronger bodyparts that were just being maintained. Like chest for instance. You could literally do a few decent warm up sets and then do maybe 2 myo rep type sets and be done. Maybe later in the week do the same on incline and thats that. If u did that approach for, say, chest and back, then you have freed up a lot of time to work on everything else.

yeah, the calves. Always been a weak point for me. drastic measures for drastic times lol

True, hadn't though of it that way...oddly, I always think of the myo-rest-pause-ey stuff as the for the weak part, like it really lets you get a lot of good reps in a short time, and regular sets for the others. Interesting idea..

man over 16 on calves that sounds like 'not' weak to me, sheesh.. arms or calves over 16.. man that'd be my lifetime dream realized! (of course, I'm a bird boned barely over 6 inch wrist person).

[WolfRose7]

True, hadn't though of it that way...oddly, I always think of the myo-rest-pause-ey stuff as the for the weak part, like it really lets you get a lot of good reps in a short time, and regular sets for the others. Interesting idea..

man over 16 on calves that sounds like 'not' weak to me, sheesh.. arms or calves over 16.. man that'd be my lifetime dream realized! (of course, I'm a bird boned barely over 6 inch wrist person).

I always myo the boring neglected stuff haha. Gets decent volume done quickly and don't die of dullness doing 5 sets of 10 bicep curls or some such