Muscle Memory Study

[Strawng]

I recently listened to the "Stronger by Science Podcast" with Greg Nuckols that recounted all the year's biggest studies, and I found their discussion of this analyses on the concept of myonuclear muscle memory particularly interesting:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7317456/.

If I understand it correctly, this seems to suggest that there's no solid evidence that the cause of "muscle memory" comes from within the cells of the muscle itself. On the podcast, Greg was suggesting that he takes this to mean that muscle memory itself may not exist. This is in direct contrast to both personal experience and a number other studies I've read that "muscle memory" of some form does in fact exist. This includes the very well-documented findings that show increased gains for gear users over lifetime natural lifters. To me, this review merely suggests that there may be another mechanism that we don't full understand that actually results in what we refer to as muscle memory. The paper even suggests plausible causal mechanisms such as an altering of the epigenetic code that could explain the phenomenon. It seems like a clear example of tring to grasp at straws to explain a real phenomenon that we can't otherwise make sense of. Thoughts...?

...Paging Mrpb

[Heisman2]

I don't understand how anyone could read that and take it to mean that muscle memory does not exist. The one single mechanistic study in humans they cite did not have large enough differences to even evaluate this. A lack of evidence does not equate to evidence for no effect. I pretty much agree with your interpretation. The fact that there are so many documented cases of muscle memory occurring indicates that it is real.

I'd actually bet than 20-30 years from now we'll look back and realize our methodology was too poor to pick up things accurately. Muscles are 3 dimensional, yet when we take biopsies we get 2 dimensional slices, and we are accumulating more evidence that hypertrophy can be region-specific. It's rather difficult to take biopsies from the same location twice.

While not directly relevant to muscle memory, this review was a bit eye-opening to me as it indicates that there is no specific hypertrophy threshold for myonuclei addition to occur: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29509639/ . That alone made me question the monuclei domain hypothesis as integral for muscle memory (at least for people without really significant levels of hypertrophy). I'm actually surprised the didn't cite this review as this review casts doubt on a linear relationship between muscle fiber size and myonuclei content, which is the basis of the first sentence of their abstract.

[Markype]

I recently listened to the "Stronger by Science Podcast" with Greg Nuckols that recounted all the year's biggest studies, and I found their discussion of this analyses on the concept of myonuclear muscle memory particularly interesting:

If I understand it correctly, this seems to suggest that there's no solid evidence that the cause of "muscle memory" comes from within the cells of the muscle itself. On the podcast, Greg was suggesting that he takes this to mean that muscle memory itself may not exist. This is in direct contrast to both personal experience and a number other studies I've read that "muscle memory" of some form does in fact exist. This includes the very well-documented findings that show increased gains for gear users over lifetime natural lifters. To me, this review merely suggests that there may be another mechanism that we don't full understand that actually results in what we refer to as muscle memory. The paper even suggests plausible causal mechanisms such as an altering of the epigenetic code that could explain the phenomenon. It seems like a clear example of tring to grasp at straws to explain a real phenomenon that we can't otherwise make sense of. Thoughts...?

...Paging Mrpb

Thanks for the link !

[WolfRose7]

Greg definitely advocates for the possibility/near certainty of other mechanisms of muscle memory

[Strawng]

@Heisman Thanks so much for the amazing response and link! That's exactly what I was looking for.

Greg definitely advocates for the possibility/near certainty of other mechanisms of muscle memory

Did you listen to the podcast? Again, I was taken aback by it, but it sounded like he was skeptical about the existence of muscle memory. He acknowledges that he previously fully believed in it, but now he's "not so sure". He didn't seem to just be talking about just "myonuclear" muscle memory, either. Perhaps he just really failed to articulate his point very well at all, but the stance he was taking seemed so skeptical of the entire concept of muscle memory that I myself decided to dig up the study.

[desslok]

Translation: we don’t even know what we don't know.

[Strawng]

Translation: we don’t even know what we don't know.

LOL that about sums it up!

[gnuckols]

@Heisman Thanks so much for the amazing response and link! That's exactly what I was looking for.


Did you listen to the podcast? Again, I was taken aback by it, but it sounded like he was skeptical about the existence of muscle memory. He acknowledges that he previously fully believed in it, but now he's "not so sure". He didn't seem to just be talking about just "myonuclear" muscle memory, either. Perhaps he just really failed to articulate his point very well at all, but the stance he was taking seemed so skeptical of the entire concept of muscle memory that I myself decided to dig up the study.

That's not true. I said I was much less confident that the driving mechanism was myonuclei-related. I don't think I expressed skepticism about the general concept of muscle memory (and if I did, I certainly didn't mean to)

[AdamWW]

That's not true. I said I was much less confident that the driving mechanism was myonuclei-related. I don't think I expressed skepticism about the general concept of muscle memory (and if I did, I certainly didn't mean to)

hey I know you

[Strawng]

That's not true. I said I was much less confident that the driving mechanism was myonuclei-related. I don't think I expressed skepticism about the general concept of muscle memory (and if I did, I certainly didn't mean to)

Ahh gotcha! Thanks for clearing that up, Greg. I love the show, btw.

Oh, & weed is a demon drug that should be banished & fuk the Netherlands! Also, when you get a chance, ask Helms what the Depression was like

[gnuckols]

Ahh gotcha! Thanks for clearing that up, Greg. I love the show, btw.

Oh, & weed is a demon drug that should be banished & fuk the Netherlands!

Thanks man! And I could not agree more

[AdamWW]

Oh, & weed is a demon drug that should be banished & fuk the Netherlands!

say that to my face not online and see wut happens! ;o)

[Mrpb]

Muscle memory, makes me think of this study: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/103/3/738/4564609

One group gained 2.6 lb LBM in 4 weeks in a large deficit. 1rm benchpress went from 235 lb to 322 lb.

Oh, & weed is a demon drug that should be banished & fuk the Netherlands! Also, when you get a chance, ask Helms what the Depression was like

What is this about?

[xuerebx]

What is this about?

It's a running gag on the SBS podcast.

[MyEgoProblem]

I just re listened to the pod as I didn't get that vibe at all first time..

And I can't fathom how anyone took what greg said as he is skeptical about muscle memory 🤷‍♂️

He Was very implicit he was a talking about mynuclei permanence and that the numbers didn't didn't line up and that it's obvious that other factors are way more important in the muscle memory phenomenon.