Mind blown! I used to listen to this channel and never watch the animations…what was I thinking????! Your information is delivered at such a pace that when combined with these animations can teach just about anyone. It probably takes a while to create a video but they are SO good and so appreciated! Thank you!
Bro let me tell you something, you are one of the best (of not the best) channels about this topic! Keep on going man! I appreciate all your dedication in this channel 💪🏻🏆
I haven't worked out at all for 2 years and 5 months. (Started back up 4 days ago) and I'm diving in. I want to learn what's happening to my muscles, and why. I don't want to just get fit without knowing how, down to the science of it. Thank you for a scientific explanation of this. It is invaluable for people like me. New sub 😊❣️
Man this is a very reliable video and I even wrote down the information the things I didn't know. This channel deserves to have more subscribers and thank you for this video
This channel is a Godsend extremely underrated. I was subscribed, randomly came across the term myofribillar hypertrophy, searched it up and what do you know you have already made a video about it. Love what you are doing mate.
This makes sense when you consider metabolic stress and oxidative stress when training high intensity low volume vs moderate intensity and moderate volume
Yes, I agree that a study about specific loads, e.g., light or heavy load, determines more about what type of muscle produced using any particular type of exercise. And it is though very important. For example, in men who lift a total of 500kg in the total volume, is it more myofibrilar in the men who lift 50kg x 10 reps exercice which is divided into several sets or the men who lift 30kg x 16 reps which is also divided into several sets. By using this simple or direct method, we should know what type of muscle (hypertrophy) specifically produced using different types of loads. And the similarity in height and weight of the subject also matters. Thanks.
I have been fascinated with this subject without knowing the technical terms. I noticed how some guys will both have 16-17 inch arms but one guys bicep looks dense thick while another’s will be flubby. I think this gets more apparent in the leg where people don’t workout as intense with relative high workloads so most end up with bigger legs but not necessarily harder/denser looking legs.
You must do a video about pump. Is pump help hypertrophy? You conclude that 2-3 sec rest between compound exercises is the best but with this rest the pump is less than 1-1.5 sec rest. So pump doesnt matter? Is it a myth that if you do many many reps at the end of an exercise for pump increase hypertrophy through blood flow?
I'll make a video on it at some point, but there's good reason to believe a greater pump does not necessarily mean muscle growth. Higher reps cause a greater pump but are similar to lower reps for gains. Longer rests (2.5-3mins) are probably better with compound exercises, yet longer rests also do not produce as much of a pump versus shorter rest durations (1 minute or less). Also, using a constant tension technique (which generally results in a greater pump versus locking out the joints in an exercise) does not produce more growth - I have a video on constant tension on the channel.
Do you think it’s helpful to periodize size training by packing -> myofibrilar -> sarcoplasmic to increase size gains rather than constantly doing sarcoplasmic?
I don't think there's a clear answer to this currently. The research (in my opinon) is far too murky. Also, the conclusions in this video are far from definitive too. Having said this, there was a study showing that performing strength style training (heavy loads) before a hypertrophy block (moderate loads) produced greater muscle growth than performing only a hypertrophy block for the full duration. I have a video on this study on the channel (titled "Building Strength First ENHANCES Muscle Growth Later?! (New Study)" However, it's far from clear if the results of that study could be explaind by changes at the muscle fiber level, they did not assess anything at the muscle fiber level. Also, bear in mind that is only a single study, it's not clear if the results of that study can be replicated.
Just a question while doing myofibrillar transversal hypertrophy it is said that the sarcomeres increses in number in parallel making the myofibrillar increase in size. So in miofibrillar hypertrophy does not mean thar celular fibre is going to increase the number of myofibres but the size of them ? Sorru for my english
so, are you telling me that the people who participated in these studies allowed someone to cut into their muscle for a sample, before and after the study?? really?? lol. or am i not thinking it correctly? lol. if that happened, wouldn't the muscle have to grow back to it's normal size before the study can proceed to see if it got bigger? i might not be thinking correctly about this so please forgive my ignorance if so. thanks.
Correct, but it's an extremely small tissue sample that eventually heals (I think the muscle fibers might grow back, but don't quote me on that as I'm not 100% certain). Even so, most studies take samples from the quads, and each sample is generally equivalent to only 1/2500 of the quad size (www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2020.00816/full#B72)
Amazing review of the evidence would it possible for you to show the method you use to collect all the available studies on a subject you want to study ? or your methodology approach regarding the research of a new topic ?
Excellent work... I just missed you talking about the techniques used... They are very different (electron microscopy, histology, molecular). It would be nice to talk about the advantages and limitations of each one. Another thing is every cell that grows loses specific tension, independent of training status, as Meidjer 2015 showed using normal, bodybuilding and power trainers. So, I think the measurement of specific tension is indirect and bad to estimate sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. 🤜🤛
Thank you! I didn't discuss the techniques used (it would have made the video way too long), but that's a good point. This paper goes into more details on it: www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2020.00816/full Not every cell that grows loses specific tension. In this video, there were numerous studies finding specific tension remained unchanged while the cell (fiber) grew. See the studies at the time point: 13:03 Also, there's studies showing specfic tension can increase with fiber growth, see the study by Claffin et al. at the time point: 16:50
Extract muscle fibre? Surgery to remove a healthy body part? Won't that cause permanent damage to that muscle if it's not going to cripple the subject?
It's a very very small sample. Maybe 50-100 fibers, For reference, it's estimated the biceps contains anywhere from 172,000 to 419,000 fibers (journals.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1152/jappl.1984.57.5.1399). Also, the area in which they fibers were removed heals (I believe).
So I'm assuming that crossfitters have more myofibular muscle than sarcoplasmic as to bodybuilders because they train heavy and also they train for endurance what do you think about this
HOH I’ve got a quick question: Is a muscle that is conditioned more towards Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy more susceptible to volatile cross sectional area? In other words- would there be a difference in muscle CSA on non training days, or during a de-load block of training? Cheers, Adrian
Individual differences exist, so I don't think there's one optimal thing, but I do plan to create stuff that can direct an individual to creating a program that hopefully is highly effective :)
Well in actuality, sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is just protein and nutrients surrounding/puffing up your muscle fibres and is a result of light training usually in 8-15 rep range while myofibrillar hypertrophy is caused by heavy training 4-8 rep range and it the formation of actual new muscle fibres and therefore occurs over a longer period of time. Wonder why some bodybuilders have bouncy muscles but bigger while others have denser and harder muscles which are gained over a long period of time and are actually muscles and not just size. That is also the reason why you'll never experience strength gains while lifting light but will definitely experience strength gains if you lift heavy, because more muscle fibres= more muscles available for the movement to become easier. This is factual and I've personally experienced this.
If the muscle increases in size you will have gained strength just not at the level of a powerlifter for example or someone who focuses on strength as their muscles will have greater contractile force
You need to alternat because they all work togeather. Ive seen the strenght purists and their ways, eventualy they get injured and disaper. The ones that alternates last and get the most of their potential.
Wonderful video! So, based on the research what should one do to maximize both myo and sarco hypertrophy? Or would the approaches be mutually exclusive?
If you want to train both: Train with different weights to (near ) failure: 1) 6-8 rep ranges 2) max 35 reps Weight in both should be chosen so that last reps are near failure. Dunno like 80% of 1max rep and 60% maybe. Try it out. Even though I don't understand why someone would want useless sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. You only get size but no strength. Strength gain only from myofib
Hello, firstly thank you for the video. You explained things very cleary. However though, there is something I can't understand. Is there a study that compares the exact myofibril size between two types of individuals? If specific tension is lower in bodybuilders, I tend to assume that myofibril sizes of bbs are generally bigger, but the sizes of the sarcoplasms are much bigger. Can we somewhat conclude high volume training may have similar myofibrilar increase with its low volume counterparts (with just additional increase in sarcoplasm)?
This is a very interesting question, unfortunately I'm unaware of any methods or studies that have compared the precise size of the myofibrils across people. It seems the only comparisons that are made is the "space" taken up by the myofibrils/sarcoplasm, not the precise size. Therefore, it's difficult to answer your very interesting last question unfortunately :(
im pretty sure mine are a mix of myofibriler packing / myofibriler hypertrophy,,, all the muscles are very hard and toned not puffy at all,,, my friend has size but hes super weak,,, all his sets are to 16,,,
Something you said at the end contradicts what actual science says, you said myofibrillar hypertrophy needs small weights, and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy needs big weights, it's actually quiet the opposite in some way, well both of them needs big weights, but the myofibrillar ones need the max effort weights like 85% of your Rep capability which is not low weights, am I wrong though, please correct me if Im wrong, thank you.
It's commonly believed muscle memory (as in the ability to regain lost muscle much quicker than it was originally gained) is due to the retaining of myonuclei. However, I believe recent evidence questions the validity of this. In case you were unaware, myonuclei are just the nuclei of muscle cells (muscle fibers). Myonuclei play a pivotal role in creating the proteins that make a muscle bigger. Generally, resistance training increases myonuclei number, and it was though once you stop training, the myonuclei stay around. Thus, although you atrophy (lose muscle fiber size), if you begin retraining, the myonuclei that you once gained are still there to quickly re-build the muscle fiber. But again, I believe a recent review study questions the validity of this. At some point, I'll dig more into the muscle memory research, but I currently don't think there's a definitive answer. Anyway, as for what signals a muscle to grow, it's been thought for a while there are 3 candidates: mechanical tension, metabolic stress, and muscle damage. Metabolic stress is the build of metabolites (like lactate) within the muscle. There is evidence that metabolities like lactate may signals proteins that go on to create hypertrophy. But overall, the magnitude of which metabolic stress is a signal for muscle growth is still far from clear (in my opinon), there's indirect evidence suggesting more metabolic stress does not equate to more muscle growth. The story is the same with muscle damage (in which it's though perhaps damage could signal proteins that ultimately create hypertrophy), namely, there's indirect evidence demonstrating that more muscle damage does not equal more muscle growth. Finally, mechanical tension seems more promising. It's simply equal to the force a muscle generates. The forces generated by a muscle are thought to be detected by what are called "mechanosensors". These mechanosensors go on to signal proteins that ultimately cause muscle growth. At some point, I'll create more detailed videos on the potential stimuli behind muscle growth.
They are opposed to each other. A muscle fiber either grows via myofibrillar hypertropy/packing or sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. So a muscle fiber cannot achieve both at the same time.
There are probably also racial differences between the likelihood to have sarcoplasmic or myofibrillar hypertrophy. It appears that the studies either had men of the same race, or ignored the impacts of race. Future studies should take this into account.
@@foldedcandle you need to rephrase this. Depends on the type of athletism but people of west african descent usually do have more fast twitch fibers and muscle mass which helps with alot of stuff but i assume asians being short helps with powerlifting due to lever arm
@@foldedcandleathleticism yes, but muscle fiber density and contraction tissue Is highest in Europeans and was tested in power lifters across racial differences.
The research is far from clear on this. If you're interested, feel free to check out the video I did on it on the channel titled "Do You Gain MORE Muscle Fibers With Training? (Research Overview)"
hmm. sarcoplasmic studies of bb'ers vs untrained,,, more sarcoplasm than myofibs with bb'ers vs more myofibs than sarcoplasm with untrained,,,, i.e. steroids is the difference. steroids are perfect for sarcoplasm type of workouts (pump workouts/high volume).
