Hypertrophy

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:41:50 GMT, "Per Elmsäter" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I'm in a discussion on another Forum about myofibrillar hypertrophy and
sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Specifically how few reps, less than six, and
heavy weights tend to favor myofibrillar hypertrophy and how more reps,
eight -twelve, tend to favor sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.

Would really appreciate if anybody can point me to any references or
articles that discuss these matters.

Thanks

Might be something of interest in this old thread.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.fitness.weights/browse_frm/thread/57e2b838e3edba79/b9681afd69a8eac4?q=sarcoplasmic+myofibrillar+hypertrophy+&rnum=19#b9681afd69a8eac4
-----------
Proton Soup

"And all this peace has been deceiving,
I need some wind to get me sailing"

Proton Soup said:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:41:50 GMT, "Per Elmsäter" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I'm in a discussion on another Forum about myofibrillar hypertrophy
and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Specifically how few reps, less than
six, and heavy weights tend to favor myofibrillar hypertrophy and
how more reps, eight -twelve, tend to favor sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.

Would really appreciate if anybody can point me to any references or
articles that discuss these matters.

Thanks

Might be something of interest in this old thread.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.fitness.weights/browse_frm/thread/57e2b838e3edba79/b9681afd69a8eac4?q=sarcoplasmic+myofibrillar+hypertrophy+&rnum=19#b9681afd69a8eac4

Quoted message said:

-----------

Thanks. Very interesting thread an I'm spending some time browsing through
it at the moment. I'm mainly looking for references to peer-reviewed
publications and it seems there aren't really any around. At least not at
that time. Would there have been anything scientifically reviewed since
then? Or are these things still theories that seem to work 😉

--
Perre
I gave up on SPAM and redirected it to hotmail instead.

Proton Soup said:

On Sun, 01 May 2005 19:39:17 GMT, "Per Elmsäter" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Proton Soup said:

On Sun, 01 May 2005 17:16:48 GMT, "Per Elmsäter"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

> Proton Soup wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:41:50 GMT, "Per Elmsäter"
>> <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm in a discussion on another Forum about myofibrillar
>>> hypertrophy and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Specifically how few
>>> reps, less than six, and heavy weights tend to favor
>>> myofibrillar hypertrophy and how more reps, eight -twelve, tend
>>> to favor sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.
>>>
>>> Would really appreciate if anybody can point me to any references
>>> or articles that discuss these matters.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>
>> Might be something of interest in this old thread.
>>
>>
>

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.fitness.weights/browse_frm/thread/57e2b838e3edba79/b9681afd69a8eac4?q=sarcoplasmic+myofibrillar+hypertrophy+&rnum=19#b9681afd69a8eac4

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> -----------
>
> Thanks. Very interesting thread an I'm spending some time browsing
> through it at the moment. I'm mainly looking for references to
> peer-reviewed publications and it seems there aren't really any
> around. At least not at that time. Would there have been anything
> scientifically reviewed since then? Or are these things still
> theories that seem to work 😉

Read teh stuff that Elzi wrote. She did reference at least one
article.

"The source of the article for the excerpt above is as follows. If
anyone is really interested (Wayne?) in a pdf of the article, I
might be swayed into 'loaning' it. Be forewarned: it in not light
reading.

Different modes of hypertrophy in skeletal muscle fibers. 2002.
Angelika C. Paul and Nadia Rosenthal. J Cell Biol; 156:751. "

Thanks again, and a whole lot 😉 That's more like it.

You're welcome, but you really should try to learn how to google.
And read.

Mister! I certainly know how to read and Google. Which I of course had done
before I placed my question here. As for reading. There's a lot of text to
read in that thread and to pinpoint the place where one article is
referenced is not all that easy.
Actually I could turn your statement around on you. That article had nothing
to do with my original question.

This is what my friend that I'm discussing this with answered. Mind you I'm
not an educated physiologist but happened into a discussion with one 😉

Citing Lindsay Edwards
"Unfortunately it has absolutely *nothing* to do with so-called
'sarcoplasmic
hypertrophy'. The article concerns proposed differing mechanisms for
hypertrophy in muscles which are constructed of
i. fibres that run the entire length of the muscle, as opposed to
ii. fibres which link end-to-end in a single muscle.

Basically it puts forward the idea that in case ii. there might be no
hyperplasia, but that the overlapping proteins might increase in length
instead of diameter or number.

In both cases contractile proteins still increase, there is no indication
that hypertrophy is due to increases in intracellular fluid and not
protein."

--
Perre
I gave up on SPAM and redirected it to hotmail instead.

On Mon, 02 May 2005 06:45:56 GMT, "Per Elmsäter" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Proton Soup said:

On Sun, 01 May 2005 19:39:17 GMT, "Per Elmsäter" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Proton Soup wrote:
> On Sun, 01 May 2005 17:16:48 GMT, "Per Elmsäter"
> <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>> Proton Soup wrote:
>>> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:41:50 GMT, "Per Elmsäter"
>>> <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm in a discussion on another Forum about myofibrillar
>>>> hypertrophy and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Specifically how few
>>>> reps, less than six, and heavy weights tend to favor
>>>> myofibrillar hypertrophy and how more reps, eight -twelve, tend
>>>> to favor sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.
>>>>
>>>> Would really appreciate if anybody can point me to any references
>>>> or articles that discuss these matters.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Might be something of interest in this old thread.
>>>
>>>
>>

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.fitness.weights/browse_frm/thread/57e2b838e3edba79/b9681afd69a8eac4?q=sarcoplasmic+myofibrillar+hypertrophy+&rnum=19#b9681afd69a8eac4

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> -----------
>>
>> Thanks. Very interesting thread an I'm spending some time browsing
>> through it at the moment. I'm mainly looking for references to
>> peer-reviewed publications and it seems there aren't really any
>> around. At least not at that time. Would there have been anything
>> scientifically reviewed since then? Or are these things still
>> theories that seem to work 😉
>
> Read teh stuff that Elzi wrote. She did reference at least one
> article.
>
> "The source of the article for the excerpt above is as follows. If
> anyone is really interested (Wayne?) in a pdf of the article, I
> might be swayed into 'loaning' it. Be forewarned: it in not light
> reading.
>
> Different modes of hypertrophy in skeletal muscle fibers. 2002.
> Angelika C. Paul and Nadia Rosenthal. J Cell Biol; 156:751. "
>

Thanks again, and a whole lot 😉 That's more like it.

You're welcome, but you really should try to learn how to google.
And read.

Mister! I certainly know how to read and Google. Which I of course had done
before I placed my question here. As for reading. There's a lot of text to
read in that thread and to pinpoint the place where one article is
referenced is not all that easy.
Actually I could turn your statement around on you. That article had nothing
to do with my original question.

In re to sarcoplamic and myofibrillar hypertrophy, you asked for "any
references or articles that discuss these matters." So I pointed you
to a thread, and based on your reply, it appeared you hadn't even read
(or at least skimmed) that one thread.

Quoted message said:

This is what my friend that I'm discussing this with answered. Mind you I'm
not an educated physiologist but happened into a discussion with one 😉

Citing Lindsay Edwards
"Unfortunately it has absolutely *nothing* to do with so-called
'sarcoplasmic
hypertrophy'. The article concerns proposed differing mechanisms for
hypertrophy in muscles which are constructed of
i. fibres that run the entire length of the muscle, as opposed to
ii. fibres which link end-to-end in a single muscle.

Basically it puts forward the idea that in case ii. there might be no
hyperplasia, but that the overlapping proteins might increase in length
instead of diameter or number.

In both cases contractile proteins still increase, there is no indication
that hypertrophy is due to increases in intracellular fluid and not
protein."

Sheesh, whatever. I didn't read it, and apparently neither did you,
even though you're the one that is so interested in learning about it.
Anyway, consider yourself blessed. Elzi sends her regards:

"Someone sent me your post to mfw on this (I wish people would leave
me alone; I'm not going back to mfw).

'Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy' is largely a misnomer. This type of
hypertrophy is well studied in cardiac physiology/biology, largely
associated with 'hypertrophy' of the sarcoplasmic reticulum (which is
regulated by ionic changes, such as Na, Ca, etc). It is greatly
involved in cardiac physiology.

In reference to skeletal muscle, the two terms together are ambiguous.
The SR plays a role in skeletal muscle physiology, but not to the same
import as in cardiac tissue. Also, the sarcoplasm is the skeletal
muscle cell's cytoplasm. So any increase in proteins that are not
specifically myofibrillar (contractile, etc) or nuclear are
catagorized as 'sarcoplasmic'. There are many non-contractile proteins
in the cytoplasm.

The term is also applied loosely to increased cell volume due to
intracellular fluids. This can increase the cell size, hence be termed
'hypertrophy.'

So, as you see, 'myofibrillar hypertrophy' is specifically an increase
in proteins involved in the contractile machinery. Whereas
'sarcoplasmic hypertrophy' is a 'loose' term to lump all other
hypertrophy.

I should also mention that the term 'sarcoplasmic hypertrophy' is
rarely used in skeletal muscle peer-reviewed literature, whereas it is
widely used in cardiac muscle literature, for the reasons I mention
above. However, it seems to be a catchy-cutesy word used in lay-speak,
without comprehension of what it is, and isn't.

Hope that helps.

Elzi"

-----------
Proton Soup

"And all this peace has been deceiving,
I need some wind to get me sailing"

Proton Soup said:

On Mon, 02 May 2005 06:45:56 GMT, "Per Elmsäter" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Proton Soup said:

On Sun, 01 May 2005 19:39:17 GMT, "Per Elmsäter"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

> Proton Soup wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 May 2005 17:16:48 GMT, "Per Elmsäter"
>> <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>> Proton Soup wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:41:50 GMT, "Per Elmsäter"
>>>> <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm in a discussion on another Forum about myofibrillar
>>>>> hypertrophy and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Specifically how few
>>>>> reps, less than six, and heavy weights tend to favor
>>>>> myofibrillar hypertrophy and how more reps, eight -twelve, tend
>>>>> to favor sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would really appreciate if anybody can point me to any
>>>>> references or articles that discuss these matters.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Might be something of interest in this old thread.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.fitness.weights/browse_frm/thread/57e2b838e3edba79/b9681afd69a8eac4?q=sarcoplasmic+myofibrillar+hypertrophy+&rnum=19#b9681afd69a8eac4

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>> -----------
>>>
>>> Thanks. Very interesting thread an I'm spending some time
>>> browsing through it at the moment. I'm mainly looking for
>>> references to peer-reviewed publications and it seems there
>>> aren't really any around. At least not at that time. Would there
>>> have been anything scientifically reviewed since then? Or are
>>> these things still theories that seem to work 😉
>>
>> Read teh stuff that Elzi wrote. She did reference at least one
>> article.
>>
>> "The source of the article for the excerpt above is as follows. If
>> anyone is really interested (Wayne?) in a pdf of the article, I
>> might be swayed into 'loaning' it. Be forewarned: it in not light
>> reading.
>>
>> Different modes of hypertrophy in skeletal muscle fibers. 2002.
>> Angelika C. Paul and Nadia Rosenthal. J Cell Biol; 156:751. "
>>
>
> Thanks again, and a whole lot 😉 That's more like it.

You're welcome, but you really should try to learn how to google.
And read.

Mister! I certainly know how to read and Google. Which I of course
had done before I placed my question here. As for reading. There's a
lot of text to read in that thread and to pinpoint the place where
one article is referenced is not all that easy.
Actually I could turn your statement around on you. That article had
nothing to do with my original question.

In re to sarcoplamic and myofibrillar hypertrophy, you asked for "any
references or articles that discuss these matters." So I pointed you
to a thread, and based on your reply, it appeared you hadn't even read
(or at least skimmed) that one thread.

Let's not get caught up in the usual mfw flaming. Of course we both have our
reputation to think of so I suppose we can't do without it either 😉
Let me just state that I did google this first without finding anything
except lots of people talking about these things without being able to point
to any real evidence.
Then when you sent me the thread I skimmed through it and did not happen to
catch the link you then pointed me to.
I really do appreciate you taking your time with this and I certainly will
dig as deep as I am capable of. at the speed my time is permitting.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is what my friend that I'm discussing this with answered. Mind
you I'm not an educated physiologist but happened into a discussion
with one 😉

Citing Lindsay Edwards
"Unfortunately it has absolutely *nothing* to do with so-called
'sarcoplasmic
hypertrophy'. The article concerns proposed differing mechanisms for
hypertrophy in muscles which are constructed of
i. fibres that run the entire length of the muscle, as opposed
to ii. fibres which link end-to-end in a single muscle.

Basically it puts forward the idea that in case ii. there might be no
hyperplasia, but that the overlapping proteins might increase in
length instead of diameter or number.

In both cases contractile proteins still increase, there is no
indication that hypertrophy is due to increases in intracellular
fluid and not protein."

Sheesh, whatever. I didn't read it, and apparently neither did you,
even though you're the one that is so interested in learning about it.
Anyway, consider yourself blessed. Elzi sends her regards:

"Someone sent me your post to mfw on this (I wish people would leave
me alone; I'm not going back to mfw).

'Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy' is largely a misnomer. This type of
hypertrophy is well studied in cardiac physiology/biology, largely
associated with 'hypertrophy' of the sarcoplasmic reticulum (which is
regulated by ionic changes, such as Na, Ca, etc). It is greatly
involved in cardiac physiology.

In reference to skeletal muscle, the two terms together are ambiguous.
The SR plays a role in skeletal muscle physiology, but not to the same
import as in cardiac tissue. Also, the sarcoplasm is the skeletal
muscle cell's cytoplasm. So any increase in proteins that are not
specifically myofibrillar (contractile, etc) or nuclear are
catagorized as 'sarcoplasmic'. There are many non-contractile proteins
in the cytoplasm.

The term is also applied loosely to increased cell volume due to
intracellular fluids. This can increase the cell size, hence be termed
'hypertrophy.'

So, as you see, 'myofibrillar hypertrophy' is specifically an increase
in proteins involved in the contractile machinery. Whereas
'sarcoplasmic hypertrophy' is a 'loose' term to lump all other
hypertrophy.

I should also mention that the term 'sarcoplasmic hypertrophy' is
rarely used in skeletal muscle peer-reviewed literature, whereas it is
widely used in cardiac muscle literature, for the reasons I mention
above. However, it seems to be a catchy-cutesy word used in lay-speak,
without comprehension of what it is, and isn't.

Hope that helps.

Elzi"

I hope so too. Thanks a whole lot Proton/Elzi. I'll need some time to digest
this but I will 😉

--
Perre
I gave up on SPAM and redirected it to hotmail instead.