Discussion in 'Diet & Nutrition' started by DwayneJohnson, Sep 3, 2013.

  1. NWlifter

    NWlifter Active Member

    Agree, I 'think' he misinterpreted what it really was. Instead of 'sarcoplasmic' hypertrophy, maybe it's more 'water, glycogen, mitochondria' etc. The idea I was meaning though, was the irrational hypertrophy where the cell size outstrips the energy systems if they don't supercompensate to the same degree. I was looking at the part you were speaking about WRT mitochondria (atp generation, etc.). 'Standard' heavy training is shown to stimulate very little to almost no increase in mitochondria, the mitochondrial density drops with hypertrophy. It might be yet another area (besides ribosomes and satellite cell donation) that can put a ceiling on continued hypertrophy?
  2. Blade

    Blade Super Moderator Staff Member

    Yes, exactly - SC activity (proliferation and differentiation) is the limiting factor in continued growth, and eventually this process is close to non-existent with heavy lifting and training age. So a phase of metabolic stimulus (occlusion/Myo-reps/stretch) may reignite progress (as per my article at Elitefts) through reactivating SC activity.

    I also am inclined to believe that it is better to keep the 5s phase as a pure mechanical stimulus, without added dropsets - at least for the last 2 weeks. I think this is what Bryan alluded to in another thread, kind of as an extended SD effect before the real SD and subsequent high rep/metabolic phase of the next HST cycle.
    NWlifter, Sci and _Simon_ like this.
  3. Sci

    Sci Well-Known Member

    Wow, yet even more reasons to adhere to the HST pronciples of progressive loading cycles of 15s, 10s, 5s. The more I learn, the more I understand the principles and why “typical bodybuilding programs” of always heavy weights, or always training to failure, or always doing high volume are inferior.
    Frequency, progressive loading, periodic rep ranges, SD... it all makes sense.
    NWlifter and _Simon_ like this.
  4. NWlifter

    NWlifter Active Member

    interesting, good post Borge!
    What about the mitochondria, are they in any way a limiting factor?

    (also, just found this, wonder if this is actually true https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1779717/ )
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2018
  5. NWlifter

    NWlifter Active Member

    Bryan- Ribosome study

    Concurrent endurance with RT increased ribosomes more 'at first', then later RT only was superior.
    Man, this also fits HST.
    It starts with endurance type RT, and progresses to a more pure RT (as loads increase and fatigue training is lesser)
  6. Blade

    Blade Super Moderator Staff Member

    I would also consider mitochondrial function a limiting factor, for some it is THE limiting factor in their health and daily energy levels - so with the way some people train and eat, I wouldn’t be surprised that the lack of results is related to this. I would be surprised if it wasn’t, actually.

    Creatine has been known for some time to be an important part of the SC process, yes :)
  7. NWlifter

    NWlifter Active Member

    OK, very cool. I would guess myo-reps would stimulate mitochondrial biogenesis way more than regular old 3x5 type programs.
    Getting some creatine today, been a while since I used it, but now seems yet another reason to try it again.

    Thanks for the responses sir!

Share This Page