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.
Please tell me you did NOT just compare yourself or your experiences as an S&C assistant to DaVinci, Newton, or Einstein.
It goes without saying, the people you just mentioned used the scientific method with rigorous scientific evidence to back-up their claims and findings. Your claims are not only unfounded in the literature (you just said you haven’t even seen any to support such claims), there is significant evidence to prove that hyperplasia is rare and only under certain conditions in athletes without some sort of chemical intervention.
You continue to talk about the magical non-Western research and then just dismissed scientific research (when it doesn’t support you) as being able to validate anything.
Your argument about it being rational is again without basis. I refer you to my last post.
Sorry if I find it ironic as well that an ex-military man such as yourself (to which I give the utmost respect) would quote theories by Marx & Engels. It goes without saying that neither of them were scientists in the strictest sense of the word.
Fogelson! you having a bad wk? Out arguing some point yet again it seems on lack of evidence or faulty evidence or some sort of thing…
If you notice, everybody has said so far, Its a Rare condition. How many elite people will subject themselfs to Testing to see if it does occur, possibility ever a rarer occurrence?
When testing for it using average joe - even more unlikely for it to occur.
even umong the elites, it may not occur, let alone Average Joe.
Even if it does occur - does it matter to a coach? Is it of concerquience to a coach? If it does matter, HOW?
I’m not dismissing anything; nor am I accepting anything.
My point is that it’s all relative.
The Bulgarian text I have, for example, authored by two PhDs, contains information that is more meaningful to me than all the peer reviewed S&C research findings I’ve seen from western sources.
Thus, this piece of literature, in my view, trumps anything you might be able to site regardless of the author- my opinion.
As far as your last post goes, you’ve offered your opinion, nothing more nothing less.
So again, my point was that any of us can cite anything we want to support our argument.
I don’t claim anything magical regarding non-western methodologies. What I do claim is that western sport science research, education, and etcetera is strictly limited by a political environment and economy that is far more interested in controlling diabetes, obesity, and cardiac pathologies than anything sport related. To boot, the limitations on research candidates is embarrassing in comparison to the hordes of national team athletes that were/are studied overseas.
The socialist environments of the former and current communist regimes, on the other hand, which are driven by political and economic interests rooted in athletics as a political weapon, are host to what I believe is the most significant findings in sport training.
So nothing magical fogelson. It also doesn’t matter whether we agree with one another.
Yes I am an assistant coach. You pointing that out implies that you place value on the hierarchy within the sport training industry here in the states. If we then continue with your logic then are we to believe that you do not take yourself serious regarding your own thoughts on the subject? Or do you hold a PhD in structural biology or something of that nature?
Regarding the irony you find me quoting Marx and Engels, no offense taken.
Since I do not value the hierarchical system of job title in this industry, or any other, someone doesn’t have to be a scientist or of the same political, religious, etcetera beliefs for me to appreciate what they have to say. This is why, for example, I’m even spending the time having this exchange with you.
I have no idea what your name is nor if you hold any professional status of meaning; however, despite our previous arguments, I think you have some good things to say so onward we go…
A few sources which suggest the possibility (note, I’m citing western research in the final example- call Guiness)
I can accept that my argument was based on some fairly basic, but not altogether unwarranted, assumptions but if you have reason to refute them as you apparently do, why not share them rather than listing some very general attributes of muscles cells.
Logic is only as good as the information that you have at hand, perhaps you can fill me in on the complicating factors you briefly mentioned.
I’m interested in why you propose multiple nuclei and mitochondria help the cell overcome the inherent problem of transport caused by increased cell volumes. As muscle volume increases does the number of nuclei increase to accommodate the greater signaling needs of the muscle? What does the literature say about the mechanisms designed to overcome the problems I have described?
I am limited to my understanding of physics and maths in this area so please forgive my ignorance.
What basis is there for these statements? How do you know it doesn’t occur MORE readily in untrained subjects? Fogelson is correct to ask for the ‘research’ that some people seem to be relying on. While I would also prefer peer reviewed research, I realize such studies are not always available. But at a minimum, I would appreciate the opportunity to review the studies that others are refering to, in order to determine in my own mind whether what’s being refered to are actually insinuations, beliefs, or actual measured results of a controlled study. There’s a big difference in what a scientist believes to be true and what he can demonstrate to be true through a properly designed and controlled study.
Everything I’ve heard (for what it’s worth) has indicated thet hyperplasia would be associated with extreme intensities.
Why then would it apply to untrained individuals? Is the idea that the DIFFERENTIAL in intensity, relative to the individual’s baseline, is greatest within that group?
Irrelevant. Have they been accepted or even peer reviewed by ANY organization of significance, even within Eastern Europe? There are numerous profound medical repercussions if what you indicate they have “found” is true. The fact that no organization of significance has hopped on it tells you the likelihood that there is much of substance there.
And it isn’t all relative.
Thus, this piece of literature, in my view, trumps anything you might be able to site regardless of the author- my opinion.
Opinion is meaningless here. It is about facts about what is known. You yourself have said that when it comes to facts, there is no opinion involved. Funny how you switch things.
As far as your last post goes, you’ve offered your opinion, nothing more nothing less.
Nope.
So again, my point was that any of us can cite anything we want to support our argument.
I don’t claim anything magical regarding non-western methodologies. What I do claim is that western sport science research, education, and etcetera is strictly limited by a political environment and economy that is far more interested in controlling diabetes, obesity, and cardiac pathologies than anything sport related. To boot, the limitations on research candidates is embarrassing in comparison to the hordes of national team athletes that were/are studied overseas.
The socialist environments of the former and current communist regimes, on the other hand, which are driven by political and economic interests rooted in athletics as a political weapon, are host to what I believe is the most significant findings in sport training.
So nothing magical fogelson. It also doesn’t matter whether we agree with one another.
Yes I am an assistant coach. You pointing that out implies that you place value on the hierarchy within the sport training industry here in the states. If we then continue with your logic then are we to believe that you do not take yourself serious regarding your own thoughts on the subject? Or do you hold a PhD in structural biology or something of that nature?
I am being specific. You are an assistant coach. You refer to people who have PhD’s as-if they are all the same, while I believe we should look at who produces significant research. I won’t hold my breath for the day Bulgaria is a prime of new biological and biomedical research.
Regarding the irony you find me quoting Marx and Engels, no offense taken.
Since I do not value the hierarchical system of job title in this industry, or any other, someone doesn’t have to be a scientist or of the same political, religious, etcetera beliefs for me to appreciate what they have to say. This is why, for example, I’m even spending the time having this exchange with you.
You referred to a “law” in a sociological text as-if it were science, which shows to me you have little education in the field since such a “law” does not hold true.
I have no idea what your name is nor if you hold any professional status of meaning; however, despite our previous arguments, I think you have some good things to say so onward we go…
I get annoyed when people bring up science and studies when it is convenient and may support their opinion and wholeheartedly dismiss it as you have done hear when it shows them to be wrong.
Why do I “propose” they help “overcome the inherent problem of transport”? Forgive me if I do not see the inherent problems to the degree you do, within the context of biology.
People have written numerous books on muscle (function, various disorders, cell architecture, etc.), so I believe that would be the best place to look as me explaining something here would not only be inherently incomplete and elementary, but would likely leave out things important to know (for the sake of discussion), which could give people the wrong ideas.
Just to give you an example though to help you see why I don’t see the same issue–creatine dramatically increases cellular volume. It has a variety of functions including nerve stimulation, but some of its greatest benefits come from increasing cellular volume and improving strength (and various other qualities including anaerobic endurance, etc.).
The thing is that, if hyperplasia were to occur so regularly (it likely does occur, but the problem is to what extent) it would likely be in an instance where the muscle fibers can no longer continue to grow in size and must split for whatever reason. Bodybuilders would be the most extreme example of this and I am not aware of any literature that shows natural bodybuilders to display significant levels of hyperplasia, let alone say, a sprinter who is not approaching the limits of skeletal muscle hypertrophy.