Hyperplasia in muscle ("go") is rare except in extreme conditions (i.e. burn victims, etc). If anything, the actin/myosin thicken, not multiply. And at last known, this is theoretical. We still don't know for certain, but I'm open to seeing evidence otherwise.
Very good. One question-Does Myofibrillar and/or Sarcoplasmic development in any sense depend on the exercise and/or tempo? Example Barbell Shrugs have a short range of motion. 10 reps can be done in the time that it takes someone to squat 2x. In the same vein fast and slow tempos can make a distinction in time under tension. From what I understand the repetition method as defined by the Soviets typically applied to "isolation style" or "local" exercises and were recommended for use in weightlifters especially those of the over 110 kg. class. Now if one is using let's say a tricep ext. for 8-12 reps in a set will he be building predominately Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy ?
A lot of factors go into the type of adaptation that occurs in the muscle, the primary driving force being load. Trained athletes will need to FAIL within given rep schemes to drive desired adaptation. As far as time under tension, we at Power Athlete subscribe to Dr. Fred Hatfield's approach: It is not total time under tension that drives adaptation, it's total time under MAXIMAL tension. With this, less time equals more if you're genuinely pushing and failing. This video is an introduction to the different forms of hypertrophy and two extremes are given as examples: NFL RB vs Pro Body Builder. Both forms have positives, no matter the training goal, and should be used together in a sound S&C program. If you're interested in learning more head to: powerathletehq.com and search hypertrophy
Well, sacroplasmic hypertrophy seems to be a reasonably small fraction of hypertrophy even for a bodybuilder. Hypertrophy is mainly just myofibrillar. It has never been shown that one can train for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Bodybuilding-style training is mainly causing myofibrillar hypertrophy. It seems as if you‘re a bit biased with regard to your other content.
Great stuff and I appreciate the visuals for how different reps grow the myofibrils in different ways. Or by growing the sacroplasm.
Well said!
Hyperplasia in muscle ("go") is rare except in extreme conditions (i.e. burn victims, etc). If anything, the actin/myosin thicken, not multiply. And at last known, this is theoretical. We still don't know for certain, but I'm open to seeing evidence otherwise.
Very good. One question-Does Myofibrillar and/or Sarcoplasmic development in any sense depend on the exercise and/or tempo?
Example Barbell Shrugs have a short range of motion. 10 reps can be done in the time that it takes someone to squat 2x. In the same vein fast and slow tempos can make a distinction in time under tension. From what I understand the repetition method as defined by the Soviets typically applied to "isolation style" or "local" exercises and were recommended for use in weightlifters especially those of the over 110 kg. class. Now if one is using let's say a tricep ext. for 8-12 reps in a set will he be building predominately Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy ?
A lot of factors go into the type of adaptation that occurs in the muscle, the primary driving force being load. Trained athletes will need to FAIL within given rep schemes to drive desired adaptation. As far as time under tension, we at Power Athlete subscribe to Dr. Fred Hatfield's approach: It is not total time under tension that drives adaptation, it's total time under MAXIMAL tension. With this, less time equals more if you're genuinely pushing and failing. This video is an introduction to the different forms of hypertrophy and two extremes are given as examples: NFL RB vs Pro Body Builder. Both forms have positives, no matter the training goal, and should be used together in a sound S&C program. If you're interested in learning more head to: powerathletehq.com and search hypertrophy
Well, sacroplasmic hypertrophy seems to be a reasonably small fraction of hypertrophy even for a bodybuilder. Hypertrophy is mainly just myofibrillar.
It has never been shown that one can train for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Bodybuilding-style training is mainly causing myofibrillar hypertrophy.
It seems as if you‘re a bit biased with regard to your other content.
Idk why people think they can differentiate
Isn't the sarcoplasmic fluid functional as well?