Guest guest Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 Hey Folks, I am curious as the what exactly the evidence of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is. I have heard that it's spoken of in the book Supertraining, I hope to have some free $$ one of these days to purchase the text. I did a bunch of researching on Pubmed and found some studies about muscle fiber changes after strength training. Most showed more increase in myofibrils compared to mitochondria or sarcoplasm, one showed an even balance between myofibriliar and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. But none showed a person gaining a higher level of sarcoplasmic contents compared to myofibriliar gains. From all those it seemed to me that one can train in a way where they gain more on the contractile machinery over the energy substrates, but not the other way around. Is sarcoplasmic more of a theory? Have there ever been any biopsies to show a type of training that was preferential to it? Thanks for any help or ideas! Ron Sowers Post Falls Id USA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2004 Report Share Posted January 12, 2004 > Hey Folks, > > I am curious as the what exactly the evidence of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is. I have heard that it's spoken of in the book Supertraining, I hope to have some free $$ one of these days to purchase the text. I did a bunch of researching on Pubmed and found some studies about muscle fiber changes after strength training. Most showed more increase in myofibrils compared to mitochondria or sarcoplasm, one showed an even balance between myofibriliar and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. But none showed a person gaining a higher level of sarcoplasmic contents compared to myofibriliar gains. > From all those it seemed to me that one can train in a way where they gain more on the contractile machinery over the energy substrates, but not the other way around. > > Is sarcoplasmic more of a theory? Have there ever been any biopsies to show a type of training that was preferential to it? > > Thanks for any help or ideas! > > Ron Sowers > Post Falls Id > USA > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 That study that was posted by someone a few day's ago sure seems to show evidence of it. It makes it sound like even though a untrained person has low amounts, years of training seem to increase it enough to make it into a significant souce of fiber size. WE NEED MORE BIOPIES STUDIES! :-) :-) Ron Sowers Post Falls Id USA ************************************************************************* ***** When Dr Siff visited us here in Sweden two years ago I asked him the same questions. He told me that the sarcoplasmic hypertrophy theory is based on unpublished material from the former USSR that he obtained from Dr Verkhoshanskij. I also asked a renowned Swedish muscle researcher the same question and his response was; " when you consider the slim amount of sarcoplasm that exists in the muscles in comparison to contractive proteins, sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is probably neglectable " . I guess the jury is still out! ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 That study that was posted by someone a few day's ago sure seems to show evidence of it. It makes it sound like even though a untrained person has low amounts, years of training seem to increase it enough to make it into a significant souce of fiber size. WE NEED MORE BIOPIES STUDIES! :-) :-) Ron Sowers Post Falls Id USA ************************************************************************* ***** When Dr Siff visited us here in Sweden two years ago I asked him the same questions. He told me that the sarcoplasmic hypertrophy theory is based on unpublished material from the former USSR that he obtained from Dr Verkhoshanskij. I also asked a renowned Swedish muscle researcher the same question and his response was; " when you consider the slim amount of sarcoplasm that exists in the muscles in comparison to contractive proteins, sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is probably neglectable " . I guess the jury is still out! ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.