Muscle Memory

M

Maximuscrates

New Member
I have heard of muscle memory, where a person is able to quickly catch up to where they were in the past after a long period of not working out.

I was wondering if this is true or not.
 
definetely true, When people stop working out for whatever reason, especially if they were really at a high level when they stopped, they know there goal is 100% possable so they can push themselves much harder in a shorter amount of time to get back there because theyve been there before.

take an example of driving to a destination youve never been to before, you have the map and where it is, but theres still a doubt in your mind whether or not your gonna get there first time without making a wrong turn, but when youve been there before, its much easier on the mind to get there next time.

makes sense to me anyway
wink.gif
 
Im sorry andysutils, but I disagree
tounge.gif


I do however believe that people can catch up on where they were before quickly, but not because of those reason you listed.
I think "muscle memory" is mostly 2 parts, one visual (size) and one practical (strength).
Sice recovery comes from the muscle storing glycogen plus water again (and some muscle growth too of course)
The strength recovery comes from the nervous system quickly relearning how to activate muscle fibers in an efficient way + water and glycogen making the muscles more effective again.
This is what I believe the "muscle memory" effect is about.

Compare it to beginners who gain size and strength quickly in the beginning, almost same situation (glycogen + water + better nervous system).

I do agree that knowing you have been there before might help you psycologically to get there, but I think that effect is only minimal.
 
Saw a couple articles relating muscle memory to fascia stretching. Essentially the technique DC training uses to facilitate faster muscle growth - i.e. stretching the muscle fascia to create room to grow. This is related to muscle memory in that a muscle that has previously attained a certain size has a covering that has already been stretched to accomodate that size, so re-attaining the previous size is easier than someone starting from scratch. Don't know whether or valid or not, but here's an article:

http://www.fortifiediron.com/invision/index.php?showtopic=25432
 
Muscle memory is definitely true!!!! When I was a newb I weighed 140lbs and benched 180. After about 9 years I got to 200lbs with a 415 bench. Then had to take off about 10yrs (family, business, house, etc...). Re-started at 180 with a 155 bench, today 1.5yrs later I am back at 200+ with a 400lb bench. So it took about 1.5 yrs to get what took 9 yrs to get in the first place. I am a living case study for this belief of "muscle memory" as it is called.

I agree with Sniggel, having been there before, does not equate to easily getting there again as stated by andysutils.

O

My little saying is "Aren't we all glad that muscle memory doesn't suffer from Alzheimer's"
biggrin.gif
 
It would seem aswell that taking a long time off would be a severe version of deconditioning as we do in HST which as we know is designed to make our muscles more responsive to the loads we're using. So if you take a long time off, they would surely respond very well to training again in a similar way to how a beginner quickly gains size as they're not conditioned to using the loads so gains come more rapidly?  
biggrin.gif
 
I vote for all of the above. I've seen all these reasons listed in various discussions over the years, but very little truth in what happens when you hit the wall. So you regained the muscle you lost, fairly easily and quickly, but the gains virtually stop when you enter new territory (assuming you're not juicing). The real question is:
What is the best way to push into new territory?

Aw, you guys knew the answer. Bulk with HST!  
biggrin.gif


Oh, waitaminnit! Max Stim! Max Stim!
But I forgot! 5x5! 5x5!
Ooh! ooh! ooh! Hey, what about...
 
i agree that there is muscle memory how it works i am not to sure about that.
also if it does exist does that mean if you are on gear and get 23inch arms when you come of the gear will muscle memory keep you at 23inch arms,
and if it doesnt does that mean muscle memory doesnt exist
rock.gif
 
<div>
(faz @ Nov. 18 2006,03:57)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">also if it does exist does that mean if you are on gear and get 23inch arms when you come of the gear will muscle memory keep you at 23inch arms,
and if it doesnt does that mean muscle memory doesnt exist
rock.gif
</div>
The muscle may have the memory, Faz, but if it doesn't have the anabolic environment that the gear created it can't maintain the size. If you have 23 inch arms and then cut your calories by 1500 per day you would expect to lose some size, wouldn't you? You are altering the conditions that created and maintained that 23 inch arm. I don't think that disproves muscle memory ...
 
<div>
(leegee38 @ Nov. 18 2006,13:18)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(faz @ Nov. 18 2006,03:57)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">also if it does exist does that mean if you are on gear and get 23inch arms when you come of the gear will muscle memory keep you at 23inch arms,
and if it doesnt does that mean muscle memory doesnt exist
rock.gif
</div>
The muscle may have the memory, Faz, but if it doesn't have the anabolic environment that the gear created it can't maintain the size.  If you have 23 inch arms and then cut your calories by 1500 per day you would expect to lose some size, wouldn't you?  You are altering the conditions that created and maintained that 23 inch arm.  I don't think that disproves muscle memory ...</div>
good point
biggrin.gif
 
Ok, maybe I changed my mind a little, maybe there is a type of muscle memory because I just thought of one thing:

When you train you get hypertrophy, but probably a little hyperplasia as well, and the latter is permanent (as I´ve read) so when you start over again after a long break you will start with more muscle fibers.

What do you think of that?
 
Well, hyperplasia hasn't been proven or really disproven, so that's questionable and in either case it's not the primary means that muscle enlarges.

Muscle memory is a term used mostly in two instances.

1. The ability to quickly return to shape, speaking of the muscle tissue itself. This is mostly from the shifting of Type IIX to IIA after a layoff from training. But also may be related to increased population of satellite cells or the ability to more easily evoke proliferation and differentiation.

2. The quick return of neural eficiency after a layoff from training.

More than likely a combination of the above which is why there is a quick rebound in not only size but strength and performance.
 
<div>
(faz @ Nov. 18 2006,03:57)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">i agree that there is muscle memory how it works i am not to sure about that.
also if it does exist does that mean if you are on gear and get 23inch arms when you come of the gear will muscle memory keep you at 23inch arms,
and if it doesnt does that mean muscle memory doesnt exist
rock.gif
</div>
id say no.why? because anyone with 23&quot; arms should be way above there natural genetic potential,and even with diet and training in check i doubt anyone could maintain that size for long.
 
Ah hell if Dan doesn't know exactly what muscle memory is then how can any of us slubs expect to know?

Maybe Arron F knows...

Anyway from what I know of physiology muscle memory would be mostly neurological, the body learns to rate code and use the muscle that it has more efficiently (which is what we call &quot;noobie gains&quot;). By learning and remembering to recruit muscles properly (both the fibres themselves and proper activation of synergysts), you can retain a similar strength-muscle ratio, as Omega_man found after 10 years of no training.

Perhaps the body also &quot;remembers&quot; the condition it was in, and is able to quickly make the adaptions necessary to get back there, but pushing into new territory requires the body to adapt in a way that it never has before, which is why its harder...this is more speculative, but I find it occurs with cardio/aerobic fitness as well (after not running/cycling for a while, I can quickly regain fitness, but find it hard to push into new fitness territory).
 
<div>
(Peak_Power @ Nov. 19 2006,19:45)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Perhaps the body also &quot;remembers&quot; the condition it was in, and is able to quickly make the adaptions necessary to get back there, but pushing into new territory requires the body to adapt in a way that it never has before, which is why its harder...this is more speculative, but I find it occurs with cardio/aerobic fitness as well (after not running/cycling for a while, I can quickly regain fitness, but find it hard to push into new fitness territory).</div>
It's been a long time since I read about it, but my recollection is that increasing your cardiovascular fitness causes the body to actually develop new capillaries. I presume that increased vascularity is not reversed if you stop your cardio work, so that may be at least part of the explanation for a quick rebound in aerobic conditioning.

As for the body &quot;remembering&quot; I've read my muscles lots of books and they still can't remember a damn thing.
tounge.gif


But the stuff about fascia stretching, neural changes, satellite cell changes, etc. seem plausible as possible reasons for the so-called muscle memory. I don't know enough to say which ones might be responsible, but the explanation must be in some physiological changes that don't get reversed even when the muscles get detrained and lose size.
 
So what you're saying is that its actually &quot;non-reversable improvements&quot;, as opposed to the muscles &quot;remembering&quot; anything.

This seems more plausible, but no doubt it will continued to be referred to as &quot;muscle memory&quot; by common terminology.
 
Something ive thought about before, surely muscle memory would also apply to any muscle lost during cutting?

So you could say the more muscle you put on the better, regardless of how much fat you put on with that muscle. Because no matter how much muscle you lose when you cut back down...if muscle memory is real as it very much seems to be....you'll regain that muscle more easily than if you were breaking new ground the next time.

I say this because i started bulking at 1lb per week as normally recommended...which was going alright, but being as impatient as i am i started eating a lot more until i started gaining 2lb per week. And  i feel as though i have been gaining muscle mass more quickly at 2lb per week...though obviously i am also gaining more fat than i was at 1lb per week also. So i have been trying to weigh up which way i want to take it.

From reasoning it would seem better to do a faster bulk, longer cut...and then have faster results afterwards....
Than a slow bulk, faster cut...but then have normal results afterwards.

wow.gif
 
A little of subject but- slow bulk /slow cut is the best....speaking from experience here. I gained 8 lb.s of lean mass in 8 weeks with no waist change and looked great my first cycle of max-stim. Second cycle....I recently got fat bulking like mad at 2 lb.s/week and had to lose it. I don't recommend any more than a lb./week gained. It may seem like muscle, but trust me anything more than a 1 lb./week is fat! Unless of course you are using 'help'. Or you don't mind getting fat.
biggrin.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top