sarcomeric or sarcoplamatic hypertrophy?

maxy

maxy

New Member
Hi guys, it´s been a long time since I have posted here, but i have been reading the FAQ and I have some questions to clarify (and remember that my inglish is not that good:-)

I notice that that there are 2 kimd of hypertrophy, one that add more volume ´cause the add of "sarcomeres" to the myofiber and the other add mopre volume because the cell must store more glycogen to acomplish the big amount of sets per body part. This last kind of hypertrophy is also know as "bodybuilding hypertrophy" and the first one is also know as "sportman hypertrophy".

If this is correct, i think that HST works towards the 1st kind rather than the 2nd. I have been training with HST style for near 4 or 5 months and I have noticed some variations in my weight near the 5 block of reps and I think it´s because the less volume, the less glycogen the muscle needs. I am right now at the 2nd negative block of 2 weeks and I have started to do some "drop sets" and I feel big this way.

So, my question is, does HST gains come from the 1st or the 2nd kind of hypertrophy? May be in the 15´s and 10´s block of reps the muscle grows ´cause the 2nd kind of hypertrophy and in the 5´s and negatives blocks the muscle grows ´cause the 1st kind.

I hope you understand what i mean, i know i need more practice writing in inglish ;-)

maxy
 
Maxy,

I have forever wondered a very similar question:

Why do strength athletes - football players, Olympic lifters, etc. look different than bodybuilders?

The musculature of bodybuilders has been described as full, or buldging. None of the players on Monday night football have this kind of physique. Is it that bodybuilders traditionally train with high volume and/or reps? Dan Moore's well reasoned article concludes with a "No." I wonder if the bodybuilder physique is a sort of illusion. We mostly see bodybuilders that are competitive and we see them around the apex of their training regimens. In other words we see the best of us at their best, in magazines, websites, etc. Perhaps a fully muscular, bodybuilding-like physique can exist only temporarily. Do Olympic sprinters sprint at 25 mph all year long? Can a marathon runner run a marathon any day of the year? That's my answer to my own question.

To answer closer to your question, I have read on T-nation (take that as you will) that very large bodybuilders can gain or lose several pounds depending on their electrolyte and carbohydrate intake. This little factoid comes from a competitive bodybuilder who is also a diet consultant to other BB'ers. It suggests that sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is in part related to diet.
 
I think you've got something there, since I went SO far backward in my mere two months off of lifting. Our peaks are lived shortly, but overall, a BB'er looks like a BB'er until he's bulked into fat. (me?) Competition time aside, I think football players and wrestlers (who also lift weights) don't look any different than a lot of guys in the gyms, maybe a bit bigger overall.
Regardless, I also believe your last statement to be true.
 
Some of the lighter (ie. leaner) Oly lifters have incredible physiques (and, yes, they probably are roiders) even though they are not training for size per se. They have plenty of size in the muscles that they use most for their lifts, as do gymnasts.

Unless someone has really superior genetics then the typical bodybuilding 'look', which most people are acquainted with (and also to my eye), only really comes from being super lean and from using AAS.

Lifting heavy loads with enough volume over a long enough period of time (think in terms of years) will give anyone a decent amount of hypertrophy if they eat enough along the way and if they ensure their training is progressive.
 
I think the main difference is that bodybuilders are eating for hypertrophy at all times except when they are cutting.

For athletes, excess weight can harm performance. Being that strength is mostly neuromuscular, they get along fine without the extra mass. I bet if you take a lineman, who need the mass, and diet them down, I bet they would look at least like state-competition bodybuilders.

Its a matter of priorities in your "sport" and the fact that you have to eat big to get big.
 
<div>
(bgates1654 @ Dec. 17 2007,17:46)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I think the main difference is that bodybuilders are eating for hypertrophy at all times except when they are cutting.

For athletes, excess weight can harm performance. Being that strength is mostly neuromuscular, they get along fine without the extra mass. I bet if you take a lineman, who need the mass, and diet them down, I bet they would look at least like state-competition bodybuilders.

Its a matter of priorities in your &quot;sport&quot; and the fact that you have to eat big to get big.</div>
Yup, I agree with that and the fact that bodybuilders are attempting to hypertrophy just about every muscle group which might well be counterproductive for other athletes/sports people (eg. gymnasts don't want big, heavy legs).
 
Yes. A bodybuilder is an athlete. His performance is that of hypertrophy and definition. And like all athletes his peak can be held for a brief period only. Unlike other sports however, our champions get photographed at their very best, and then sold to the public as being what you can achieve if you buy this magazine, purchase its supplements, and do its prescribed workouts. Do weekend road bikers compare themselves to Lance Armstrong? I hardly think so.

Watch out Muscle &amp; Fitness. This one is deprogramming.
mad.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top