Muscle hyperplasia

[goergen1]

OK Matt - Explain

Scientists Tesch and Larsson, in a 1982 study, used an interesting indirect approach. They reported persuasive evidence. Their subjects consisted of three groups: competitive bodybuilders, powerlifters and ordinary, untrained physical education students.

Performing minimally invasive fine-needle biopsies on all three groups, their surprising finding was that the world-class bodybuilders showed smaller muscle fibers than the powerlifters.

Even more surprising, the bodybuilders muscle fibers were no thicker than the physical education students' who were not weight-trainers.

There study was repeated in 1986, to confirm the finding, with the same result.

Their conclusion was that the increased muscle size of the bodybuilders was likely the result of fiber-splitting (hyperplasia) rather than hypertrophy. This calls into serious question the almost universally accepted hypertrophy model.

 

[matt182]

im outta here "whoosh"

 

[Karky]

theres no need too, thats like asking me to explain why santa doesnt exist, he just doesnt.

The key processed in proliferation are DNA replication and mitosis, one has to realise cells are strictly regulated - control points, otherwise cancer would be abundance. Skeletal Muscle cells are in whats called cell cycle arrest.

Look up the cell cycle on the net and maybe youll understand more

I know what a cell cycle is. And you do know we get a bit of "cancer" all the time, but our body "fixes" it?

how do you explain all the findings about muscle fiber size in BBers PLers etc? In science, it's very uncertan if hyperplasia of muscle cells can occur in humans, so I don't get why you take the "santa" position on the topic. Biology like this usually always requires more than a "no, it's simply not possible"
If you can't be bothered to explain your stanpoint then don't bother posting in the thread at all. you say it's because of cell cycle arrest, then explain what it is, or provide a link.

 

[goergen1]

im outta here "whoosh"

HA HA. 2 Points for Karky and "G". :boxing_smiley::jump1:

 

[Wrangell]

I believe muscle hyperplasia can and does occur. If you look up research done on muscle fiber size. you will find that bodybuilders, and weightlifters have roughly the same muscle fiber size as the average person.

This means, because of their greater physical stature, BB and WL have more muscle fibers.

Since, when they start training, people do not know or care how many muscle fibers they currently have, I find it hard to believe that BB and WL just happen to have 2 or 3 X as many muscle fibers as the average person. Especially since, without training, most BB and WL would be the regular person.

It also hard to explain why their muscle fibers are not significantly larger than the average persons. Given that all of that training is supposed to increase fiber size.

There is a lot of evidence pointing to the probability that muscle hyperplasia occurs.

With respect to " There is a lot of evidence pointing to the probability that muscle hyperplasia occurs " .......

......Berardi has an interesting take on this when he says "

Unfortunately there has not even been ...' any evidence ' .... that very intense weight training will promote hyperplasia." .......​

" At this point, I know that you're all supercharged to learn how to both make more fibers and to make them bigger, but I'm going to have to put the breaks on and be the bearer of bad news. The problem with hyperplasia is that no one really knows exactly how to promote it. Once we are born, some experts believe, muscle fiber number remains fixed for our lifetime. Therefore under normal circumstances muscle fiber hyperplasia seems nearly impossible.

Interestingly, though, experts have begun to speculate that under abnormal circumstances hyperplasia can contribute to overall muscle growth. For starters, recreational or even moderately intense weight training will probably NOT do it. Unfortunately there has not even been ...' any evidence ' .... that very intense weight training will promote hyperplasia. One proposed link to hyperplasia, though is anabolic steroid use. A recent article in the American College of Sports Medicine's Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise found evidence for muscle fiber hyperplasia in anabolic steroid using powerlifters(1). This however, is pretty much the first evidence of a mechanism for hyperplasia in humans. The bottom line is that unless we are ready to boatload anabolic steroids into our systems, neither you nor I are going to be enjoying the benefits of muscle fiber hyperplasia any time soon "

John Berardi - Cell Volume and Muscle Growth

 

[Karky]

that's what the article I posted says too. That the average gym rat will probobly never experience hyplerplasia.
Scientifily speaking, we don't know enough about this to really make a conclusion as to what training stimuls is needed to achieve hyperplasia.

 

[Wrangell]

that's what the article I posted says too. That the average gym rat will probobly never experience hyplerplasia.

Not to mention hard core lifters - or ' non-average ' gym rats ( from Berardi again ) ....

" Unfortunately there has not even been ...' any evidence ' .... that very intense weight training will promote hyperplasia.........unless we are ready to boatload anabolic steroids into our systems, neither you nor I are going to be enjoying the benefits of muscle fiber hyperplasia any time soon "​

 

[Wrangell]

that's what the article I posted says too. That the average gym rat will probobly never experience hyplerplasia.
Scientifily speaking, we don't know enough about this to really make a conclusion as to what training stimuls is needed to achieve hyperplasia.

Seems to me, Berardi is making the conclusion that - based on the evidence - " under normal circumstances muscle fiber hyperplasia seems nearly impossible "

 

[Karky]

yeah, the steroids thing is interresting. But what I think is cool, is how easily they have made hyperplasia happen in animals. Offcource, that doesn't mean it can happen in humans, but very often animals and humans are pretty simular.

 

[goergen1]

Unfortunately there has not even been ...' any evidence ' .... that very intense weight training will promote hyperplasia.

There is no evidence to sat that this does not happen as well. The reality is that this is another topic where we have to believe that hyperplasia is possible until it is proven no be not possible. Which it has not been.

This can be the only conclusion, since we have proven in this thread that there is research on both sides.

under normal circumstances muscle fiber hyperplasia seems nearly impossible.

This statement begs the question, When is the line crossed where the athlete is at the training level where hyperplasia is possible?

I know everyone likes to throw in the steroid question. There is not much evidence that steroids cause or do not cause hyperplasia.

The possibility of muscle hyperplasia may be higher for teenagers -

There is an additional cause of myofibril hyperplasia that we may look to for data. If training is started while the trainee is still in the growing stage, for example teenagers, hyperplasia is more likely to occur. This is because of the characteristically high HgH levels present during these maturation years. Some research theorizes that HgH combined with high-intensity exercise is capable of stimulating hyperplasia, at least in teenagers.

The only significant conclusion that can be drawn from this is that one of the hormones produced in the growth cycle plays a role in producing hyperplasia.

It should be understood that in spite of all the bodybuilding press to the contrary, HgH does not produce hypertrophy. It isn't even anabolic. If it were, every teenager would have large muscles. HgH is a very effective fat burner and during the re-building process that takes place during sleep it burns fat to provide the energy for repair. HgH is also anti-catabolic while it is present in the system. This anti-catabolic function is, however, primarily prophylactic.

The presence of HgH suppresses Cortisol release. In sum, HgH is lipolytic and anti-catabolic but not anabolic under normal conditions.

As I have stated above, I will choose to believe that hyperplasia can happen.

 

[Karky]

possible until proven impossible, I agree.

 

[Wrangell]

There is no evidence to sat that this does not happen as well. The reality is that this is another topic where we have to believe that hyperplasia is possible until it is proven no be not possible. Which it has not been. This can be the only conclusion, since we have proven in this thread that there is research on both sides.

Sorry, that's fallacious reasoning.

There is no proof of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. So, it's like saying, I " have to believe " in a Flying Spaghetti Monster " until it is proven not be not possible ".

So, to say " we have to believe that hyperplasia is possible until it is proven no be not possible " is just as fallacious an argument IMO.

This statement begs the question, When is the line crossed where the athlete is at the training level where hyperplasia is possible?.

False premise IMO - as this presumes hyperplasia IS in fact possible.

Berardi, for example, says there is no evidence to suggest it is.

I know everyone likes to throw in the steroid question. There is not much evidence that steroids cause or do not cause hyperplasia.

Berardi seems to suggest it might be related.

The possibility of muscle hyperplasia may be higher for teenagers -

There is an additional cause of myofibril hyperplasia that we may look to for data. If training is started while the trainee is still in the growing stage, for example teenagers, hyperplasia is more likely to occur. This is because of the characteristically high HgH levels present during these maturation years. Some research theorizes that HgH combined with high-intensity exercise is capable of stimulating hyperplasia, at least in teenagers.

The only significant conclusion that can be drawn from this is that one of the hormones produced in the growth cycle plays a role in producing hyperplasia.

It should be understood that in spite of all the bodybuilding press to the contrary, HgH does not produce hypertrophy. It isn't even anabolic. If it were, every teenager would have large muscles. HgH is a very effective fat burner and during the re-building process that takes place during sleep it burns fat to provide the energy for repair. HgH is also anti-catabolic while it is present in the system. This anti-catabolic function is, however, primarily prophylactic.

The presence of HgH suppresses Cortisol release. In sum, HgH is lipolytic and anti-catabolic but not anabolic under normal conditions.

As I have stated above, I will choose to believe that hyperplasia can happen.

Fair enough, you aren't entitled to your beliefs.

Just as lots of people ' believe ' in GOD - in the absence of proof or evidence.

That's the beauty of a holding a ' belief ' - no proof or evidence is needed.

However, if something is claimed to be a " fact " - then proof and / or evidence IS needed.

 

[Karky]

but there's no evidence supporting the Flying Spaghetti Monster either

 

[Wrangell]

but there's no evidence supporting the Flying Spaghetti Monster either

Thank you Karky .......you just made my point for me.

( that was easy )

 

[Hoss]

If hyperplasia is proven to happen in cats, it happens in humans. Our muscular systems are near perfectly identical. The only thing stoping us from proving this is ethics.

 

[Wrangell]

possible until proven impossible, I agree.

Fair enough.

But, if you claim something is a ' fact ' - sadly, you need evidence to support the claim.

If you can't, you can still argue you ' believe ' it is still ' possible ' - but that there simply is ' no evidence ' to support it as a fact.

Beliefs don't require logic, proof or evidence.

 

[Wrangell]

If hyperplasia is proven to happen in cats, it happens in humans. Our muscular systems are near perfectly identical. The only thing stoping us from proving this is ethics.

As far as I know, the issue being debated is whether weight training will promote hyperplasia.

If we could just get some cats into the gym for some hared-core FBWs - maybe this issue could be put to rest once and for all.

 

[Hoss]

If it happens on its own without drugs, then why wouldn't it happen while weight training?

..and in most of your posts you're arguing whether it's possible or not.

 

[Wrangell]

If it happens on its own without drugs, then why wouldn't it happen due to weight training?

..and in most of your posts you're arguing whether it's possible or not.

Well, perhaps people should look into that.

But as Berardi notes - there is no evidence to suggest weight training will promote hyperplasia. If someone wants to claim this IS a fact, then they simply have to provide evidence of it.

Some on this thread are saying there is evidence weight training will promote hyperplasia - Berardi suggests otherwise. So, it may or may not possible - Berardi simply seems to suggest there is no evidence to support the claim.

 

[Hoss]

Merry Xmas..


For those that don't like to click, here's the last sentence of the abstract,

"The results of this study suggest that in several animal species certain forms of mechanical overload increase muscle fiber number. "

..maybe you should read some journals on your own instead of taking Berardi's word for it. It's shown up in studies time and time again.