I know hyperplasia has been mentioned before but I have a question
If hyperplasia actually does occur in humans then wouldn’t it be possible to change the percentage of fast/slow muscle fibres without actually “converting” one into the other.
Thanks
how would u get hyperplasia to take place??
and i think whether the muscle fibers are fast or slow would be genetically determined anyway
It is apparantly possible under extreme loading in humans.
Yes initial fibre % is more than likely genetic, but what I am saying is that say a muscle has 1000 slow fibres and 1000 fast fibres and hyperplasia occurs in the fast fibres so that the cells split and new fibres are formed and you end up with 1100 slow fibres and 2000 fast fibres, you have now changed the % of fast to slow in that muscle without doing the mythical converting one into the other.
doing the mythical converting one into the other.
Hyperplasia is certainly more mythical than the myosin HC expression change.
I’m no sports scientist on this topic but hyperplasia has definately occured in animals and may be possible in humans. Ivan abadjiev the bulgarian weightlifting coach reported that hyperplasia occured in his athletes.
Heres the link, read the last few pages:
http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1122166/7/index.htm
“Myosin Hc expression change” are you saying that a slow fibre can change to a fast fibre?
I don’t consider Abadjev a resource.
The few studies that imply an increase of muscle fibers, mostly done in the mid 90’s, are not conclusive, IMO.
“Myosin Hc expression change” are you saying that a slow fibre can change to a fast fibre?
No.
IIb->IIa.
Be prepared, as my response is not scientifically based…
I think hyperplasia is highly improbable. But after thinking back to seeing pictures of Jay Cutler (Mr. Olympia) as (if I remember correctly) a skinny 16-18 year old, I can see that it could be possible. And there is no telling what can happen when you add multiple exogeneous hormones into the mix…
Its a rather academic question. Train properly and you will maximize your potential. Whether or not this happens via hyperplasia or some other mechanism…who cares?
Hyperplasia seems to be possible in bodybuilders, but it is chemically induced. The discussion of how/what, is a verboten topic at CF.com
igf-1 stimulates hyperplasia
Yes. Let’s not get too far off the tracks.
Academically speaking, why wouldn’t a muscle undergo hyperplasia? I mean as a muscle cell grows larger, the surface area to volume ratio increases and I would think that this would result in a lower efficiency of nutrient transport making it harder to support the tissue that already exists. Is this perhaps a reasonfor body builders plateauing?
In a more applied setting, what ramifications does this have for the transport of waste product out of the muscle cell?
I think this is a very good point and not the only one.
Why wouldn’t muscles tear more often as athletes improve if the only means to greater power is increased contractile volume?
The human body is amazingly adaptive so why not hyperplasia?
I’ve always assumed it because it seems the likeliest scenario.
Consistent with the root of my criticism of what is perpetuated in North American academia, certifying organizations, and sport training…
Overseas research, particularly from eastern Europe and Russia, suggests that hyperplasia does occur within the myocardium and skeletal muscle fibers.
But to what degree of hyperplasia? Also, can you please show us the research, James?
I have seen nothing peer reviewed that indicates that it happens regularly. On top of that, I can’t really support Dazed’s argument on the “logic” of it happening as it is much more complex than that.
I’m not sure if I have research articles on file per se.
I do know that Val Nasedkin touched on it during a lecture a few years ago and I have a book originally published in
Bulgarian that discusses it as well. The authors of the Bulgarian text are/were PhDs at the National Sports Academy in Sofia.
When time permits I might see if I can find some more sources.
I ask because I am always suspicious of non-peer reviewed literature or things that are not published in widely spread and well-known publications. Considering the top academics from around the world and in a variety of settings that publish in many of the top journals, there is usually “a reason” why certain “studies” don’t get published widely.
Why do you have logic in quotes? Why does a lack of peer reviewed material support an arguement one way or another?
This phenominon would be expected to occur in top athletes to the greatest extent, to lesser mortals less often, and to lab subjects at 5 dollars an hour probably never.
I have logic in quotes because the body doesn’t always work or even necessarily normally by proliferating cells in response to a stimulus (as it often isn’t the most efficient way) and the way he expressed it seems to suppose that this would be a logical way for things to work (he is also leaving out aspects of mitochondria within muscle cells, but no need to go that far now). Plus, muscle cells are inherently different than other tissues in the body in that they have (better to say can have) multiple nuclei. On top of that, who is to say hyperplasia is necessarily more beneficial over increasing the size of the fibers?
I just don’t see a basis for the claims or arguments.
I understand your opinion on the matter; however, using me as an example- many of my peers might very well dismiss my coaching efforts because my programming is so unconventional relative to the mainstream of NCAA physical preparation coaches.
Likewise, we know how a certain population wrote off Charlie due to subject matter that is moot here on the forum.
Of course the list goes on looking back in time: Davinci’s house arrest due to his cosmological findings that were, at that tiime, in consistent with the catholic church, Newton, Einstein, and so on.
My point being that peer reviewed research is only at its peak of value amongst populations that value the opinions of those particular peers.
As a result, if one accepts the law of opposites than we must accept that the finding of one is just as valuable as the finding of another, assuming they are presenting opposing results, supposing that the findings may effectively rationalized into practice.
If you take a step back for a moment I think we’ll agree that we all basically rationalize our viewpoints based upon the findings of our own or someone else, somewhere in time.
There’s so much ‘research’ out there that just about anyone can find something to validate anything.
In the case of hyperplasia in humans, simply because it makes rational sense from the standpoint of high level training, I think the furthering of this discussion might make forward progress regardless of how many sources may be cited for or against the notion.