4 ms·
Any concrete numbers or sources? I pretty much doubt that it is much more. Or even any more at all. No matter if you are trained or untrained, the number of mu
by bayesian_horse 5y ago
Any concrete numbers or sources? I pretty much doubt that it is much more. Or even any more at all.
No matter if you are trained or untrained, the number of muscle cells doesn't change. Only the amount of muscle fibers inside the cells changes.
- lottin 5y agoCheck this out: "The rate of strength increase differs considerably between untrained and trained individuals (148), as trained individuals have shown much slower rates of improvement (83,107,111,221). A review of the literature reveals that muscular strength increases approximately 40% in “untrained,” 20% in “moderately trained,” 16% in “trained,” 10% in “advanced,” and 2% in “elite” over periods ranging from 4 wk to 2 yr. [...] The difficulty in continuing gains in strength appears to occur even after several months of training. It is well documented that changes in muscular strength are most prevalent early in training (92,185). (Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002;34(2):364-380.)
- bayesian_horse 5y agoThat only talks about strength, not muscle mass. Also there is a difference in what kinds of muscle fibers are added, and which are removed or replaced by others. Some are better for endurance, others more for peak strength. My main point is that it is impossible to gain muscle mass faster than you can loose body fat with a proper diet. A proper weight loss in my opinion starts at one kg a week. Extremely obese people should, with medical consultation, aim much higher, though. There is no way you can gain 52kg of muscle mass in a year. Also for shorter periods it doesn't add up.