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…
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.
I’m not thinking of absolute fibre size, but, rather, the stress placed on the fibre by the action demands and how the body might respond to that demand to prevent ever-increasing injury rates as performance goes up. I have wondered about this because injury rates seem to have gone down despite the ever-greater speeds.
While better surfaces and lombard’s paradox may be part of the reason, I suspect that is not all.
Fogelson, you have a gift for arguing for the sake of arguing.
I have literature that is convincing enough for me. That’s all the matters.
I’m not dismissing anything. There’s a sea of information out there and it is up to the coach, as far as my line of work is concerned, to determine what is most meaningful.
If the former head coach of the Ukranian junior national T&F team (Val) and the National Sports Academy in Sofie doesn’t satisfy your criteria for respected Eastern European organizations then there’s really no point in discussing this any further.
And yes it is relative because I have literature that says one thing and other literature says another.
Regarding you continuing to point out my job status, I am speaking to you and you are speaking to me. So what is your job title and why should I or anyone else here put stock in what you have to say?
Are you simply well read with respect to certain fields of literature or have you attained a professional status that suggests you have more than an academic understanding of the literature?
It doesn’t really matter to me.
If it is the former than by your own criteria of determining what populations are deserving of your attention than I would expect that you’d remove yourself from the discussion.
So I am arguing for the sake of arguing when you go against what science has shown to be true for natural athletes, compare yourself to DaVinci, Einstein, and Newton, compare a theoretical “law” of Marxism to a “law” in the hard sciences (physics, biology, etc.), and then bring up a bunch of research on theoretical models as being your supporting evidence?
From the limited studies I’ve seen, and from the comments by others who may have seen studies I have not, the question of whether hyperplasia can be induced without drugs is still an open question. My point was that if we are not sure if its actually occuring at all without chemical intervention, we can’t jump to the conclusion that it will or won’t happen more readily within one group, because we still don’t understand the if, much less than how, why, where and when.
If it does occur, it may be as you’ve postulated, that the extreme difference in stress that might be required can only occur in untrained individuals. Or, it may be that only an advanced athlete can train at the intensity levels required to stimulate the process, if it does in fact occur.
My point is, we just don’t know if hyperplasia can be induced in humans at all, with or without chemical intervention, so it is very premature to state that it is more or less likely to occur in one group or the other.
Fogelson, not all scientific information is limited to peer reviewed research articles.
My analogy had to do with the concept of someone’s work being dismissed because they did not share the popular opinion.
If you are bent against me using a theoretical/philosophical concept in the context of a scientific discussion then disregard it. It’s not important.
The point is that there’s plenty of opposing view points out there stemming from highly respected scientists. This commonality is shared amongst all fields of science and otherwise.
Looking at some notes I have from Val he states that hyperplasia was originally found in humans via bodybuilding methods and goes on to explain the Paradox-to produce hyperplasia, need hypoxia but they’re oxidative, no hydrogen ions one Can create local hypoxia by pinching capillaries stopping blood flow to muscle and then creating hypoxia and that this leads to hyperplasia of myofibrils
This is 100% consistent with what is stated in the text I own from Zhelyazkov, Tsvetan, and Daniela Dasheva. Training and Adaptation in Sport. Sofia, Bulgaria: National Sports Academy, 2001.
You’re right, the ones that exist for a position of hyperplasia being rare/minor/uncommon in natural athletes are the only ones peer reviewed.
My analogy had to do with the concept of someone’s work being dismissed because they did not share the popular opinion.
Popularity of an opinion should be irrelevant, as those people have shown, provided that there is not only significant evidence, but that it is overwhelmingly true, repeatable, etc. Your position does not have that quality.
If you are bent against me using a theoretical/philosophical concept in the context of a scientific discussion then disregard it. It’s not important.
Multiple aspects of it though show a gross misunderstanding of the process and what information your position even has available.
The point is that there’s plenty of opposing view points out there stemming from highly respected scientists. This commonality is shared amongst all fields of science and otherwise.
Your definition of highly respected is different from mine, apparently. Even if someone was highly respected, a position without backing is not worthy of discussion in the context of science. If you want to post or say that you think something may be happening, that is all well and good, but you must acknowledge it goes against all data available and does not have a firm basis in the least.
Looking at some notes I have from Val he states that hyperplasia was originally found in humans via bodybuilding methods and goes on to explain the Paradox-to produce hyperplasia, need hypoxia but they’re oxidative, no hydrogen ions one Can create local hypoxia by pinching capillaries stopping blood flow to muscle and then creating hypoxia and that this leads to hyperplasia of myofibrils
This is 100% consistent with what is stated in the text I own from Zhelyazkov, Tsvetan, and Daniela Dasheva. Training and Adaptation in Sport. Sofia, Bulgaria: National Sports Academy, 2001.
What is it that you do for a living?
I currently teach a graduate level biology course. Multiple forums members can attest to this.
I’m done with this nonsense. Everyone here can see the joke here. When you have some studies that have data to back up your points, come back again. I believe there is a lot left for us to find out, but until then, I’ll stick with the information we do have available and it is that hyperplasia is rare and minor when it comes to skeletal muscle hypertrophy in humans (no chemical influence).
My position in this discussion is presenting information from who I believe are highly respected individuals that I’ve mentioned. I’m not claiming fact. I’m presenting alternative information for consideration. Per my initial post in this thread.
As far as an overwhelming truth is concerned, this obviously requires an abundant population to see eye to eye, attain the same results, and so on.
If, for example, the pioneers in the coaching population were to limit their practice to what had currently existed as overwhelming truths, at their very beginnings, then I suspect many methodological principles that are agreed upon and discussed on this very forum may not have been forwarded.
fogelson, as a graduate level instructor all we know is that your understanding of the information is reflective of what information you were presented with in your studies. You are taking the popular opinion and presenting it as fact because you interpret scientific fact as being synonymous with what the overwhelming majority agrees upon.
If you consider the research on hyperplasia then you know that it is very difficult to conduct a proper study on humans- due to the process of accurately counting fibers.
My view is that taking what the mainstream agrees upon for rote is a gamble.
There’s more than enough evidence of this concept in many different professional fields.
Agreed. Though that’s not important.
Are we to believe that you are the authority as to what a discussion that pertains to muscle physiology may consist of?
I appreciate the concept of authoritarian viewpoint as I know I have my own; however, it is not your place to nit pick as to how I or anyone else may chose to make analogies.
well you have basically summarized the theme of my voice on the internet since 2003- and I am a coach in the industry with evidence based results to show for my efforts.
I believe you. No need to think otherwise.
I wasn’t aware that you were the voice of the people.
Studies- I have the work of three individuals who have had a greater impact on the way that I program training then most of what I’ve reviewed from western publications combined.
You see, what I believe is relevant to share here on the forum lies more in the direction of what successful coaches and coach educators have to say such as Val and the Bulgarian professors at the NSA.
I am not trying to change your viewpoint; however, you should chose your words more carefully. Meaning, what I perceive to be the joke for everyone is not the fact that I am presenting the work of others who I respect; but that when you say things like this:
apparently you think you speak for everyone and are in a position to instruct me as to what I might share for the consideration of others.
for the first time ever, you and I are in complete agreement.
I also agree that there is no point to further this particular exchange.