5 ms·

There is a lot of useful advice in that article. However, I am always made weary by people's use of term "muscle growth." What is typically perceived and dubbed

by yakster 10y ago

There is a lot of useful advice in that article. However, I am always made weary by people's use of term "muscle growth." What is typically perceived and dubbed as muscle growth is actually simply muscle cells retaining water and sugar as fuels to help accommodate the ongoing increase in physical activity. That is what anyone who begins training observes in the first few months. Think of this as a simple increase in the size of each muscle cell due to storage of extra fuel. This is completely analogous to our accumulation of fat. We barely ever grow the number of fat cells. Instead, we shrink or expand them like sacks. However, when it comes to the actual increase in the number of muscle cells, this process is much more difficult to launch. From my experience, this cannot be done without proper hormonal background. By this, I do not mean exogenous (injected) hormones. I mean that one has to have proper levels of testosterone and growth hormone. The former is regulated by the psyche and can be described as the hormone of successfully overcoming difficulties and becoming a winner. An interesting thing is that your brain does no care whether you successfully beat someone in a computer game or just finished a marathon. It will still reward you with testosterone. On the contrary, if you beat yourself over small things, you will fill yourself with cortisol, which is inversely related to testosterone. Needless to say, to me the muscle growth constitutes invoking the second scenario. That is a formidable but not at all impossible task. It requires knowing how to work with yourself and your mind.

gaius 10y ago
Right, this is the ol' sarcoplasma volume vs myofibril density debate. It's also that the modern perception of the appearance of fitness is not well correlated with functionality - hence the prizing of the former over the latter.
- jacques_chester 10y ago
  > Right, this is the ol' sarcoplasma volume vs myofibril density debate. The evidence against there being any such difference is becoming more and more overwhelming. Studies based on either muscle biopsies or cross-sectional scans basically show no difference. The emerging consensus is training to approximately around failure is the main predictor of hypertrophic outcomes. Which is why both "train heavy!" and "train volume!" seem to work. The difference is that "train heavy!" also has nervous system adaptations.
  - flurie 10y ago
    I want to point out that, not only is this comment absolutely correct based on what we know, but also, the more studies we see, the more this fact is confirmed. A great meta-analysis can be found here: http://strengtheory.com/hypertrophy-range-fact-fiction/ http://strengtheory.com/hypertrophy-range-fact-fiction/
- yakster 10y ago
  Absolutely. To continue this line of thought I would even say that most "muscles" of the so-called body builders are to a large extent swellings of lymphatic system and interstitial space. When one eats so much protein, the body does not know what to do with it and simply stores it as junk everywhere it deems safe (least dangerous). Where is the least dangerous? Well, it is not the brain, not the heart, not the organs. So, it deposits them in the muscles and other tissues.
  - usaphp 10y ago
    But if their body only stores protein as a junk and muscles don't have a real use in "so-called bodybuilders" as you say, why are bodybuilders able to lift insanely heavy weights and most of them successfully compete in powerlifting events setting records?
    - gaius 10y ago
      At competitive levels the physiques of bodybuilders and powerlifters are VERY different.
      - usaphp 10y ago
        Not really, bodybuilders tend to have less fat thus their muscles look bigger. Also Powerlifters lift heavier weights in big part due to a much better technique than bodybuilders. Saying that bodybuilder's muscles are just a junk of stored protein is wrong, they are strong, very strong
        gaius 10y ago
        Of course they are strong, but they are different sports. A powerlifter would never "cut" before a competition, for example. A bodybuilder doesn't just want to be big, he or she is after a very specific, balanced physique. A powerlifter wants to be strong in the 3 big lifts and doesn't care about any ratios, etc etc.
        10y ago
JDiculous 10y ago
Any resources (articles, books, videos, etc.) you'd recommend for someone who wants to learn more about this?
- yakster 10y ago
  I will see if I can find something. No one really talks about these things. I have a youtube channel in Russian. Perhaps I will start discussing some of this in English. What interests you? Anything in particular?
  - mlvljr 10y ago
    Dude! А что за канал-то? :)
jacques_chester 10y ago
> However, when it comes to the actual increase in the number of muscle cells, this process is much more difficult to launch. It's still controversial whether creating new muscle cells (hyperplasia) is possible at all, as distinct from expanding the existing cells (hypertrophy). > The former is regulated by the psyche and can be described as the hormone of successfully overcoming difficulties and becoming a winner Actually, testosterone in males is regulated by the hypothalamic-pituitary-testicular-adrenal axis. Mood can affect it, but not by very much. The concept that hormones are the sole predictor of hypertrophy doesn't fit the observed facts: people are high or low responders to training, to food, to rest, to hormones and so on. There's no single predictor of hypertrophy that you can minimax. You start with the well-tested classics and adjust from there.
- yakster 10y ago
  Here is a fact: If you do not have a proper hormonal background, you will not grow. I do not care what you eat, what you do to train, etc. Take a 6 year old girl, give her best workout routine, best nutrition, etc. And take a 16 year old man-youth. I guarantee you that he will grow muscle even if he eats mulch all day. Why? Hormonal background. > Actually, testosterone in males is regulated by the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. Mood can affect it, but not by very much. What is mood?
  - jacques_chester 10y ago
    I can repurpose your argument to point out that it is unnecessarily reductive. Two subjects, one eats grass, one eats meat. Who grows more? Two subjects, one trains, one doesn't train. Who grows more? Two subjects, one is hormonally-responsive, one isn't. Who grows more? Two subjects, one is 8, one is 88. Who grows more? Two subjects, one starts with very many myofibrils, one doesn't. Who grows more? Two subjects, one is tall, the other is short. Who grows more? etc etc
    - yakster 10y ago
      > Two subjects, one eats grass, one eats meat. Who grows more? Once again it depends on the hormonal background. I only eat raw fruits and vegetables. I assure you that I have plenty of muscle, endurance and strength. All of these were built on this diet. > Two subjects, one trains, one doesn't train. Who grows more? All things held equal and constant, the one who trains. You are missing my point. If hormones are there, you will literally build muscles from raising a coffee cup a few times. > Two subjects, one is hormonally-responsive, one isn't. Who grows more? This misses the point. We are no discussing how to get hormones to change from one state to another. We are discussing two different stationary hormonal backgrounds. > Two subjects, one is 8, one is 88. Who grows more? Once again, hormonal background. 8 year old will not grow muscle. He will have more growth hormone, but not testosterone. The former is responsible for growth but in a different sense which is akin to restoration. > Two subjects, one is tall, the other is short. Who grows more? Completely irrelevant.
raverbashing 10y ago
I guess you're confusing some things > simply muscle cells retaining water and sugar as fuels Yes, muscles store glycogen (causing sarcoplasmatic hypertrophy) There's also myofibrilar hypertrophy which is related to actual protein content increase > when it comes to the actual increase in the number of muscle cells, this process is much more difficult to launch This is "rare" and it is called hyperplasia
mlvljr 10y ago
finally, a decent comment; one thing one can notice over years is -- once you've actually added MORE cells, it's pretty easy to pump them with blood / whatever and make look puffy, eveen after years of no training :)
ethan_g 10y ago
I was a bit suspicious when he claimed 20 lbs in 3 months; usually 1 lb/week is considered the upper limit for beginners. Then I saw he was suggesting a high creatine intake, which for many people will cause them to retain water. I imagine a significant fraction of that 20 lbs is water weight, meaning it's easily lost when you stop taking supplements and working out for a little while. That said, the water is stored in your muscles, so it does make them look bigger. It's just not a permanent kind of gain.

by yakster 10y ago

gaius 10y ago

Right, this is the ol' sarcoplasma volume vs myofibril density debate. It's also that the modern perception of the appearance of fitness is not well correlated with functionality - hence the prizing of the former over the latter.

jacques_chester 10y ago
> Right, this is the ol' sarcoplasma volume vs myofibril density debate. The evidence against there being any such difference is becoming more and more overwhelming. Studies based on either muscle biopsies or cross-sectional scans basically show no difference. The emerging consensus is training to approximately around failure is the main predictor of hypertrophic outcomes. Which is why both "train heavy!" and "train volume!" seem to work. The difference is that "train heavy!" also has nervous system adaptations.
- flurie 10y ago
  I want to point out that, not only is this comment absolutely correct based on what we know, but also, the more studies we see, the more this fact is confirmed. A great meta-analysis can be found here: http://strengtheory.com/hypertrophy-range-fact-fiction/ http://strengtheory.com/hypertrophy-range-fact-fiction/
yakster 10y ago
Absolutely. To continue this line of thought I would even say that most "muscles" of the so-called body builders are to a large extent swellings of lymphatic system and interstitial space. When one eats so much protein, the body does not know what to do with it and simply stores it as junk everywhere it deems safe (least dangerous). Where is the least dangerous? Well, it is not the brain, not the heart, not the organs. So, it deposits them in the muscles and other tissues.
- usaphp 10y ago
  But if their body only stores protein as a junk and muscles don't have a real use in "so-called bodybuilders" as you say, why are bodybuilders able to lift insanely heavy weights and most of them successfully compete in powerlifting events setting records?
  - gaius 10y ago
    At competitive levels the physiques of bodybuilders and powerlifters are VERY different.
    - usaphp 10y ago
      Not really, bodybuilders tend to have less fat thus their muscles look bigger. Also Powerlifters lift heavier weights in big part due to a much better technique than bodybuilders. Saying that bodybuilder's muscles are just a junk of stored protein is wrong, they are strong, very strong
      - gaius 10y ago
        Of course they are strong, but they are different sports. A powerlifter would never "cut" before a competition, for example. A bodybuilder doesn't just want to be big, he or she is after a very specific, balanced physique. A powerlifter wants to be strong in the 3 big lifts and doesn't care about any ratios, etc etc.
        10y ago

JDiculous 10y ago

Any resources (articles, books, videos, etc.) you'd recommend for someone who wants to learn more about this?

yakster 10y ago
I will see if I can find something. No one really talks about these things. I have a youtube channel in Russian. Perhaps I will start discussing some of this in English. What interests you? Anything in particular?
- mlvljr 10y ago
  Dude! А что за канал-то? :)

jacques_chester 10y ago

> However, when it comes to the actual increase in the number of muscle cells, this process is much more difficult to launch. It's still controversial whether creating new muscle cells (hyperplasia) is possible at all, as distinct from expanding the existing cells (hypertrophy). > The former is regulated by the psyche and can be described as the hormone of successfully overcoming difficulties and becoming a winner Actually, testosterone in males is regulated by the hypothalamic-pituitary-testicular-adrenal axis. Mood can affect it, but not by very much. The concept that hormones are the sole predictor of hypertrophy doesn't fit the observed facts: people are high or low responders to training, to food, to rest, to hormones and so on. There's no single predictor of hypertrophy that you can minimax. You start with the well-tested classics and adjust from there.

yakster 10y ago
Here is a fact: If you do not have a proper hormonal background, you will not grow. I do not care what you eat, what you do to train, etc. Take a 6 year old girl, give her best workout routine, best nutrition, etc. And take a 16 year old man-youth. I guarantee you that he will grow muscle even if he eats mulch all day. Why? Hormonal background. > Actually, testosterone in males is regulated by the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. Mood can affect it, but not by very much. What is mood?
- jacques_chester 10y ago
  I can repurpose your argument to point out that it is unnecessarily reductive. Two subjects, one eats grass, one eats meat. Who grows more? Two subjects, one trains, one doesn't train. Who grows more? Two subjects, one is hormonally-responsive, one isn't. Who grows more? Two subjects, one is 8, one is 88. Who grows more? Two subjects, one starts with very many myofibrils, one doesn't. Who grows more? Two subjects, one is tall, the other is short. Who grows more? etc etc
  - yakster 10y ago
    > Two subjects, one eats grass, one eats meat. Who grows more? Once again it depends on the hormonal background. I only eat raw fruits and vegetables. I assure you that I have plenty of muscle, endurance and strength. All of these were built on this diet. > Two subjects, one trains, one doesn't train. Who grows more? All things held equal and constant, the one who trains. You are missing my point. If hormones are there, you will literally build muscles from raising a coffee cup a few times. > Two subjects, one is hormonally-responsive, one isn't. Who grows more? This misses the point. We are no discussing how to get hormones to change from one state to another. We are discussing two different stationary hormonal backgrounds. > Two subjects, one is 8, one is 88. Who grows more? Once again, hormonal background. 8 year old will not grow muscle. He will have more growth hormone, but not testosterone. The former is responsible for growth but in a different sense which is akin to restoration. > Two subjects, one is tall, the other is short. Who grows more? Completely irrelevant.

raverbashing 10y ago

I guess you're confusing some things > simply muscle cells retaining water and sugar as fuels Yes, muscles store glycogen (causing sarcoplasmatic hypertrophy) There's also myofibrilar hypertrophy which is related to actual protein content increase > when it comes to the actual increase in the number of muscle cells, this process is much more difficult to launch This is "rare" and it is called hyperplasia

mlvljr 10y ago

finally, a decent comment; one thing one can notice over years is -- once you've actually added MORE cells, it's pretty easy to pump them with blood / whatever and make look puffy, eveen after years of no training :)

ethan_g 10y ago

I was a bit suspicious when he claimed 20 lbs in 3 months; usually 1 lb/week is considered the upper limit for beginners. Then I saw he was suggesting a high creatine intake, which for many people will cause them to retain water. I imagine a significant fraction of that 20 lbs is water weight, meaning it's easily lost when you stop taking supplements and working out for a little while. That said, the water is stored in your muscles, so it does make them look bigger. It's just not a permanent kind of gain.