We need a video on workout frequency my dude, I need to know the research behind days of working out in the gym and or working out certain days of a muscle group for the optimal volume per week, my boy you killing it
Yep, I plan to make content on it. Although, it might be a while before I get around to it (a few months). However, I did write an article on this topic a while back on Medium: medium.com/house-of-hypertrophy/how-often-should-you-train-a-muscle-to-maximize-growth-e0a59e882924 Feel free to check it out! In case you're limited for time: these are the main takeaway points: - With low to moderate volumes (12 or fewer weekly sets for a muscle group), training frequency does not appear to impact muscle growth on average. - With higher volumes (15 or more weekly sets for a muscle group), the research is currently unclear if dividing this volume out over more days a week could be beneficial. - Individual differences likely exist. Some individuals may be more responsive to a particular training frequency.
Ur a goated individual for this, thank you, and ur channel is such a fresh air completely science based, with all the references to all the journals and studies and meta analysis, so we can do our own research, exercise science is a great thing and you are contributing so much. I work out 3 to 4 times a week since I’ve been working out for a year and a half btw
look at powerlifters they are pretty strong and dense , i think they have more myofribilar cells splited , and look at bodybuilders they a lot of volume and not the same strengf pound for pound than powerlifters , it shows there is more volume( sarcoplasmic fluid and glicogen ) but less mechanical force ( miofribilar cells ) , it shows heavy lifting makes more miofribilar cells . just train heavy the end
So volume increases sarcoplasm which is added fuel (glucose) for higher volume. Endurance. Whereas lower volume higher weight would increase the myofibral growth and splitting to accommodate higher resistance. Strength. Lengthening is based on stretched training. Which makes sense just from a physics perspective. Better fulcrum. So full range of motion, isometric pause at fully stretched and alternate between higher weights lower volume and lower weight higher volume. Add in slow eccentric overload and decent rest periods between sets 1-2 min..mix in some drop sets and train close to failure 2-3x a week of about 15-20 sets per muscle a week to near failure or failure and getting a good 48hrs of recovery between muscle workouts.
Just a random thought: Do you think the muscles would need to be trained in a progressively greater range of motion to further increase myofibril length, or perhaps they would still be limited after a time frame similar to those you discussed. I could easily be way off but perhaps the increase in length appears to stop because the muscle adapts to eccentric training at those specific lengths, and an increase in range of motion; either in the same exercise or using another, may cause more growth of myofibril length. Either way this was a wonderful video, keep up the quality content!
That's an interesting question! I think there could be something to that. I think it may not be range of motion per se, but getting a bigger stretch. For instance, with eccentric overloaded knee extensions, due to the machine, you can pretty much only achieve a maximum of 90-110 degrees of knee flexion. However, if you switched over to somehow performing eccentric overloaded deep squats, you now can achieve a greater knee flexion of 130-140 degrees (and thus a greater eccentric overloaded stretch of the quads). All in all, without future research, it's difficult to truly verify if this can be effective for spuring on further myofibril length gains :)
Potentially a plateau is when the fibres hit the splitting point , then a new amount of fibres are available to grow , interesting , thanks for this video it’s incredible !
Ok this 1 is gold. I have to wonder what the tendon looked like. The common denominator is stretching the muscle. I don't think the reps and sets matter in this sense as much as the movement chosen. Find ways to stretch muscle is what I'm hearing. Which I try to do any way for other reasons.
Thanks so much for this information and your channel. I wonder if there is a true limit to the amount of myofibrils one could naturally produce. There seems to be a “natty limit” for muscle growth, but when I see new mind over matter studies, like the one Wim Hof produced, I wonder if that is simply a limit we are self-inducing, based on old anecdotes of training before steroids. There are obviously outliers who surpass the 25 FFMI naturally, so, hypothetically, why couldn’t anybody do that? It’s like how Roger Bannister ran a 4 minute mile, previously thought impossible, then ~30 people did it within a few months. Just thinking out loud! Also, are there any studies of myofibril length/count and strength? Thanks again!
Thank you for the kind words. I think your thoughts are highly interesting! Maybe what you're saying is true. I truly wonder if individals believe they could achieve a lot more naturally then they originally though, would they achieve this? Differences in genetics are of course real. But I also wonder how does belief and expectations impact the genetics dicussion. Could at least some part of what people call better genetics be put down to belief and expectations? All in all, I think it's very difficult to answer these questions. I'm also not to osure how researchers could go about studying this in the most accurate way (in a study, if you tell someone to believe their going to build more muscle/strength then they think is possible, we can't really verify if they truly believe it). As for your last question, I'm unfortunately unaware of any studies assessing myofibril length/count and its relationship to strength.
@@HouseofHypertrophy I think it could be tested! It would be hard to control for many variables that might affect the results (like genetics), though. Genetics could effect the results too significantly if the groups were too small. If you had a control group of random individuals that was doing a specific training regimen, and following a highly specified diet + experimental group that had same diet and same training and random individuals but was also visualizing more muscle on their body after workouts, had daily mantras and affirmations saying “I’m building more myofibrils” or “my body is producing more myofibrils” and maybe (a la Wim Hof) used breath exercises after working out and told their body to build more myofibrils or lengthen them. Obviously, that’s a lot of variables, so if the results were statistically significant, then researchers could test each method individually to see which one accounted for the extra growth. I mention Wim Hof because his breath exercise allowed him and his research participants to control their autonomic nervous system through conscious will, as well as their body temperature. Both things previously thought to be outside our conscious control. Thanks for indulging and replying!
I'm a big fan of Wim Hof, his breathing method is awesome! Also, I think the design could very well work. There could be some limitations, like we can't be certain an individual truly believes what they are saying, or if they are simply just saying it. Also, I'm not too sure if there are methods to verify visualisations (do stronger visualisations = greater results, while weaker visualisations = less). Even so, a study design like the one you described would still be highly interesting and potentially informative (if the results find an effect).
Extremely late here so idk if you will notice me but there is a recent studies that shows muscle hyperplasia occours in natural lifters training for 3+ years compared to an avwrage person. Its was 35-40ish% something more fibers for trained natural lifters. I'm really sorry i cant find the pubmed link otherwise id have let you know in the comments 😅
bradschoenfeldphd- There is good evidence that fiber hyperplasia (splitting of fibers into additional fibers) occurs under extreme conditions in animal models (prolonged loaded stretch). There also is some evidence that steroid users experience hyperplasia. It has thus been theorized that muscle fibers hypertrophy up to a certain threshold, then must undergo hyperplasia to maintain functional capacity. Previous evidence suggested that natural lifters did not experience hyperplasia, leading to speculation that they are not able to achieve hypertrophy that reaches the upper threshold. Contrary to previous evidence, this new study suggests that hyperplasia does in fact occur in nattie lifters. The study compared measures of biceps brachii size in a group of trained men (3+ yrs experience) with a cohort of untrained men. Results indicated that the trained men had 34% more muscle fibers than the untrained cohort, and that the increased fiber number correlated with a greater whole muscle size. This would suggest that trained individuals can indeed exceed the threshold for growth and thus experience fiber hyperplasia. instagram.com/p/C8R2ynZp_EN/?igsh=MWtxZ2Jidm9jaWZ0bA== Dint mention the pmid number unfortunately:(
Hey dude, yep! I read this study a few weeks ago, it's pretty interesting! I may fit it into a video in some way in the future. Appreciate you as always!
Regarding myofibrillar hypettrophy seemingly requiring low volume vs. sarcoplasmic hypertrophy occuring at high volumes, how does this relate to people such as mechanics and gymnasts who seem to have extremely dense and functional muscles due to constant daily exertion of the same groups of muscles? For instance mechanics having huge and ripped forearms and gymnasts with jacked upper bodies. I've always been under the impression that these were myofibrillar hypertrophy because it seems to be an increase in "base mass" that do not seem to diminish much even as these people lay off from their physical workouts/activities.
Hi there, what is the application of this to muscle regeneration after traumatic injuries where muscle volume and length is lost in the muscle belly? Would muscle regenerate to it's length by adding myofibrils by sacromeres in series or is it not possible at all and the muscle fiber would be permanently shortened? I am also thinking if regeneration by series is possible then once that is complete, can it be hypertrophied by sacromere parallel addition through normal resistance training?
I'm not an expert on injuries and stuff, but let me tell you what I think :) After an injury, if the muscle recovers its length, the only was this can be achieved (I think) is through adding sarcomeres in series, so yes I think this is what would happen. Once regenerated, I believe normal resistance training would stimulate an increase in sarcomeres in parallel.
Back in the day (and even today folks still believe this), it was thought micro tears are the primary driver of growth. But, this is exteremly shaky and probably not true. Now, there is indirect evidence damage can cause growth via neutrophils and macrophages (journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Fulltext/2012/05000/Does_Exercise_Induced_Muscle_Damage_Play_a_Role_in.37.aspx). But ultimately, the role of damage in muscle hypertrophy is not clear. At the very least, I think it's clear more muscle damage does not equal more muscle growth. Also, it's difficult to say how damage would relate to the topics dicussed in this video. Although, an increase in sarcomeres in series could actually be a byproduct of damaging muscle fibers at a stretched length. Specificially, when training with high forces while the muscle fibers are stretched, the sarcomeres would also be signicantly stretched. This may be seen as somewhat of a threat to integrity, hence sarcomeres are added in series to limit the degree to which individual sarcomeres would be stretched going forward.
@@HouseofHypertrophy Do the Sarcomeres get pulled on continuous from the start of the exercise to the end ? until they give out ? Or do they only get pulled on when reaching high force, tension, likely near muscular failure ? Hopefully makes sense.
Sarcomeres would be pulled on when they are individually stretched. If an exercise achieves this, this pulling would occur thoughout the full duration of a set on that exercise. However, the more pulling (longer duration and/or high degrees of loading placed on the sarcomeres though being near to failure) would result in greater damage (I think).
Depends on which muscle and what movement you're performing. If you exclusively perform elbow flexion and extension. The sarcomeres of the triceps and biceps would be working throughout their various lengths.
It's not something I've fully looked into, but I may include some vertical jump info in videos. For example, I looked at how vertical jumping outcomes compare between partial and full squats in this video: ua-cam.com/video/L1vVOFtDUWQ/v-deo.html
@@HouseofHypertrophy would increase in number of sarcomeres in series and number of sarcomeres in parallel lead to different amounts of strength gain? I'd have thought that a longer muscle wouldn't have significantly more force output than a shorter one with the same cross sectional area but I'm not sure if that's true?
wondering how to cause hyperplasia i belive heavy stretch is the key as arnold and tom platz are great examples of hyperplasia, arnold would do 84 pound dumbell flys for 10 reps and his chest got growth due to hyperplasia and tom platz used to do sissy hack squats and stretch his legsat the bottom,he also exploded i belive it was all due to hyperplasia, so do you have any knowlegede how to apply this?
We have a video on hyperplasia that should be released in the next 2 weeks. But, I'll mention that it's far from clear if you can train for it, partly because it's not actually clear if it occurs in humans (we'll review the evidence on it in the video).
@@HouseofHypertrophy as much as i know, hyperplasia can actually lead to atrophy. Because when you gain more muscle cells, you need more neurons to synapse with those new Muscle cells. And its highly risky because it's hard to get more neurons. If you don't get new synapses in few months, your muscles will atrophy so hard that it would change to fibroblast tissue, it will never recover again. At least it's what Guyton physiology textbook says.
I agree, but unfortunately much much research has been conducted on animals, even in fields aside from sport science. The sort of "odd" thing is animal research likely has benefited humans in numerous ways, like the medicine field for example.
So how does atrophy happen to myofibrils? Will the number of sarcomeres decrease, just as they have increased? How do they decrease, are they broken down for energy?
@@HouseofHypertrophy So do they retain density? Will the myofibrils be the same thickness, but just shorter? It seems like it would be impractical otherwise, but idk :P
We need a video on workout frequency my dude, I need to know the research behind days of working out in the gym and or working out certain days of a muscle group for the optimal volume per week, my boy you killing it
Yep, I plan to make content on it. Although, it might be a while before I get around to it (a few months). However, I did write an article on this topic a while back on Medium: medium.com/house-of-hypertrophy/how-often-should-you-train-a-muscle-to-maximize-growth-e0a59e882924
Feel free to check it out! In case you're limited for time: these are the main takeaway points:
- With low to moderate volumes (12 or fewer weekly sets for a muscle group), training frequency does not appear to impact muscle growth on average.
- With higher volumes (15 or more weekly sets for a muscle group), the research is currently unclear if dividing this volume out over more days a week could be beneficial.
- Individual differences likely exist. Some individuals may be more responsive to a particular training frequency.
Ur a goated individual for this, thank you, and ur channel is such a fresh air completely science based, with all the references to all the journals and studies and meta analysis, so we can do our own research, exercise science is a great thing and you are contributing so much. I work out 3 to 4 times a week since I’ve been working out for a year and a half btw
3-4x per week sounds good,, and thank you for the kind words, that made be smile :)
look at powerlifters they are pretty strong and dense , i think they have more myofribilar cells splited , and look at bodybuilders they a lot of volume and not the same strengf pound for pound than powerlifters , it shows there is more volume( sarcoplasmic fluid and glicogen ) but less mechanical force ( miofribilar cells ) , it shows heavy lifting makes more miofribilar cells . just train heavy the end
So volume increases sarcoplasm which is added fuel (glucose) for higher volume. Endurance. Whereas lower volume higher weight would increase the myofibral growth and splitting to accommodate higher resistance. Strength. Lengthening is based on stretched training. Which makes sense just from a physics perspective. Better fulcrum. So full range of motion, isometric pause at fully stretched and alternate between higher weights lower volume and lower weight higher volume. Add in slow eccentric overload and decent rest periods between sets 1-2 min..mix in some drop sets and train close to failure 2-3x a week of about 15-20 sets per muscle a week to near failure or failure and getting a good 48hrs of recovery between muscle workouts.
This is way over my head.
My theory is that sarcomeres split and grow to their maximum size then split again. Instead of just random sarcomeres appearing out of nowhere.
Just a random thought:
Do you think the muscles would need to be trained in a progressively greater range of motion to further increase myofibril length, or perhaps they would still be limited after a time frame similar to those you discussed. I could easily be way off but perhaps the increase in length appears to stop because the muscle adapts to eccentric training at those specific lengths, and an increase in range of motion; either in the same exercise or using another, may cause more growth of myofibril length.
Either way this was a wonderful video, keep up the quality content!
That's an interesting question!
I think there could be something to that. I think it may not be range of motion per se, but getting a bigger stretch. For instance, with eccentric overloaded knee extensions, due to the machine, you can pretty much only achieve a maximum of 90-110 degrees of knee flexion. However, if you switched over to somehow performing eccentric overloaded deep squats, you now can achieve a greater knee flexion of 130-140 degrees (and thus a greater eccentric overloaded stretch of the quads).
All in all, without future research, it's difficult to truly verify if this can be effective for spuring on further myofibril length gains :)
Potentially a plateau is when the fibres hit the splitting point , then a new amount of fibres are available to grow , interesting , thanks for this video it’s incredible !
Interesting idea, thank you for the kind words and comment :)
I don't want sarcoplasms in my muscle fibers. Just pack them full with myofibrils, please.
Haha! to be honest, the sarcoplasm still matters, things like sarcoplasmic proteins play a crucial role in generating energy!
Ok this 1 is gold. I have to wonder what the tendon looked like. The common denominator is stretching the muscle. I don't think the reps and sets matter in this sense as much as the movement chosen. Find ways to stretch muscle is what I'm hearing. Which I try to do any way for other reasons.
Thanks so much for this information and your channel.
I wonder if there is a true limit to the amount of myofibrils one could naturally produce. There seems to be a “natty limit” for muscle growth, but when I see new mind over matter studies, like the one Wim Hof produced, I wonder if that is simply a limit we are self-inducing, based on old anecdotes of training before steroids. There are obviously outliers who surpass the 25 FFMI naturally, so, hypothetically, why couldn’t anybody do that? It’s like how Roger Bannister ran a 4 minute mile, previously thought impossible, then ~30 people did it within a few months. Just thinking out loud!
Also, are there any studies of myofibril length/count and strength?
Thanks again!
Thank you for the kind words.
I think your thoughts are highly interesting!
Maybe what you're saying is true. I truly wonder if individals believe they could achieve a lot more naturally then they originally though, would they achieve this?
Differences in genetics are of course real. But I also wonder how does belief and expectations impact the genetics dicussion. Could at least some part of what people call better genetics be put down to belief and expectations?
All in all, I think it's very difficult to answer these questions. I'm also not to osure how researchers could go about studying this in the most accurate way (in a study, if you tell someone to believe their going to build more muscle/strength then they think is possible, we can't really verify if they truly believe it).
As for your last question, I'm unfortunately unaware of any studies assessing myofibril length/count and its relationship to strength.
@@HouseofHypertrophy I think it could be tested! It would be hard to control for many variables that might affect the results (like genetics), though. Genetics could effect the results too significantly if the groups were too small.
If you had a control group of random individuals that was doing a specific training regimen, and following a highly specified diet + experimental group that had same diet and same training and random individuals but was also visualizing more muscle on their body after workouts, had daily mantras and affirmations saying “I’m building more myofibrils” or “my body is producing more myofibrils” and maybe (a la Wim Hof) used breath exercises after working out and told their body to build more myofibrils or lengthen them.
Obviously, that’s a lot of variables, so if the results were statistically significant, then researchers could test each method individually to see which one accounted for the extra growth.
I mention Wim Hof because his breath exercise allowed him and his research participants to control their autonomic nervous system through conscious will, as well as their body temperature. Both things previously thought to be outside our conscious control.
Thanks for indulging and replying!
I'm a big fan of Wim Hof, his breathing method is awesome!
Also, I think the design could very well work. There could be some limitations, like we can't be certain an individual truly believes what they are saying, or if they are simply just saying it. Also, I'm not too sure if there are methods to verify visualisations (do stronger visualisations = greater results, while weaker visualisations = less).
Even so, a study design like the one you described would still be highly interesting and potentially informative (if the results find an effect).
A big part of that is age, we can be as optimal as we wish but after a while we won't be able to grow anymore
Magnificent information, thanks
Thank YOU my friend!
Awesome, thanks for these videos!!
No worries, thank you for checking them out :)
Extremely late here so idk if you will notice me but there is a recent studies that shows muscle hyperplasia occours in natural lifters training for 3+ years compared to an avwrage person. Its was 35-40ish% something more fibers for trained natural lifters. I'm really sorry i cant find the pubmed link otherwise id have let you know in the comments 😅
bradschoenfeldphd- There is good evidence that fiber hyperplasia (splitting of fibers into additional fibers) occurs under extreme conditions in animal models (prolonged loaded stretch). There also is some evidence that steroid users experience hyperplasia. It has thus been theorized that muscle fibers hypertrophy up to a certain threshold, then must undergo hyperplasia to maintain functional capacity. Previous evidence suggested that natural lifters did not experience hyperplasia, leading to speculation that they are not able to achieve hypertrophy that reaches the upper threshold.
Contrary to previous evidence, this new study suggests that hyperplasia does in fact occur in nattie lifters. The study compared measures of biceps brachii size in a group of trained men (3+ yrs experience) with a cohort of untrained men. Results indicated that the trained men had 34% more muscle fibers than the untrained cohort, and that the increased fiber number correlated with a greater whole muscle size. This would suggest that trained individuals can indeed exceed the threshold for growth and thus experience fiber hyperplasia.
instagram.com/p/C8R2ynZp_EN/?igsh=MWtxZ2Jidm9jaWZ0bA==
Dint mention the pmid number unfortunately:(
Hey dude, yep! I read this study a few weeks ago, it's pretty interesting! I may fit it into a video in some way in the future. Appreciate you as always!
Thank you for the info!
No problem, thank you for the support!
So basically, training for strength will result in the adaption best for strength. Extending ROM is best for length etc ... just logical sense?
Very nice information sir
Thank you!
Regarding myofibrillar hypettrophy seemingly requiring low volume vs. sarcoplasmic hypertrophy occuring at high volumes, how does this relate to people such as mechanics and gymnasts who seem to have extremely dense and functional muscles due to constant daily exertion of the same groups of muscles? For instance mechanics having huge and ripped forearms and gymnasts with jacked upper bodies. I've always been under the impression that these were myofibrillar hypertrophy because it seems to be an increase in "base mass" that do not seem to diminish much even as these people lay off from their physical workouts/activities.
That's a very interesting observation, the truth is I don't know the answer haha!
So brilliant
Thank YOU my friend!
Great video!
Thank you, your support means a lot!
Make a channel based on Nutrition
55% increase in muscle fiber cross sectional area after just one week of stretching their wings? Now I want to be a chicken.
Haha :)
Legend.
Thank YOU, haha :)
So, in order to tap into myofibril hypotrophy, I need to increase my weight and lower my reps?
It's currently not super clear how to train for myofibrillar hypertrophy unfortunately
You could research it I ran into mile fiber information on Ascent chiropractic, along with other websites 💪🏻👑🇺🇲
Take a shot every-time he says “length”
How does start packing? Is it basically high reps with heavy loads
Non hai dato nessuna risposta se è meglio poche ripetute e alto carico o viceversa
Hi there, what is the application of this to muscle regeneration after traumatic injuries where muscle volume and length is lost in the muscle belly? Would muscle regenerate to it's length by adding myofibrils by sacromeres in series or is it not possible at all and the muscle fiber would be permanently shortened?
I am also thinking if regeneration by series is possible then once that is complete, can it be hypertrophied by sacromere parallel addition through normal resistance training?
I'm not an expert on injuries and stuff, but let me tell you what I think :)
After an injury, if the muscle recovers its length, the only was this can be achieved (I think) is through adding sarcomeres in series, so yes I think this is what would happen.
Once regenerated, I believe normal resistance training would stimulate an increase in sarcomeres in parallel.
Interesting
:)
Is the idea that micro tearing of the muscle results in hypertrophy a thing of the past? If not how does that related to these types ?
Back in the day (and even today folks still believe this), it was thought micro tears are the primary driver of growth. But, this is exteremly shaky and probably not true.
Now, there is indirect evidence damage can cause growth via neutrophils and macrophages (journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Fulltext/2012/05000/Does_Exercise_Induced_Muscle_Damage_Play_a_Role_in.37.aspx).
But ultimately, the role of damage in muscle hypertrophy is not clear. At the very least, I think it's clear more muscle damage does not equal more muscle growth.
Also, it's difficult to say how damage would relate to the topics dicussed in this video. Although, an increase in sarcomeres in series could actually be a byproduct of damaging muscle fibers at a stretched length. Specificially, when training with high forces while the muscle fibers are stretched, the sarcomeres would also be signicantly stretched. This may be seen as somewhat of a threat to integrity, hence sarcomeres are added in series to limit the degree to which individual sarcomeres would be stretched going forward.
@@HouseofHypertrophy Do the Sarcomeres get pulled on continuous from the start of the exercise to the end ? until they give out ? Or do they only get pulled on when reaching high force, tension, likely near muscular failure ? Hopefully makes sense.
Sarcomeres would be pulled on when they are individually stretched. If an exercise achieves this, this pulling would occur thoughout the full duration of a set on that exercise. However, the more pulling (longer duration and/or high degrees of loading placed on the sarcomeres though being near to failure) would result in greater damage (I think).
@@HouseofHypertrophy so just moving my arm causes them to be pulled to some degree, correct?
Depends on which muscle and what movement you're performing. If you exclusively perform elbow flexion and extension. The sarcomeres of the triceps and biceps would be working throughout their various lengths.
Can you make a video on vertical jump ?
It's not something I've fully looked into, but I may include some vertical jump info in videos. For example, I looked at how vertical jumping outcomes compare between partial and full squats in this video: ua-cam.com/video/L1vVOFtDUWQ/v-deo.html
Would this type of hypertrophy equal in more strenght than any other?
Yeah, compared to sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, presumably myofibrillar hypertrophy or packing would be better for strength :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy would increase in number of sarcomeres in series and number of sarcomeres in parallel lead to different amounts of strength gain? I'd have thought that a longer muscle wouldn't have significantly more force output than a shorter one with the same cross sectional area but I'm not sure if that's true?
in short we have no idea and we just talk alot.
wondering how to cause hyperplasia i belive heavy stretch is the key as arnold and tom platz are great examples of hyperplasia, arnold would do 84 pound dumbell flys for 10 reps and his chest got growth due to hyperplasia and tom platz used to do sissy hack squats and stretch his legsat the bottom,he also exploded i belive it was all due to hyperplasia, so do you have any knowlegede how to apply this?
We have a video on hyperplasia that should be released in the next 2 weeks. But, I'll mention that it's far from clear if you can train for it, partly because it's not actually clear if it occurs in humans (we'll review the evidence on it in the video).
@@HouseofHypertrophy as much as i know, hyperplasia can actually lead to atrophy.
Because when you gain more muscle cells, you need more neurons to synapse with those new Muscle cells.
And its highly risky because it's hard to get more neurons.
If you don't get new synapses in few months, your muscles will atrophy so hard that it would change to fibroblast tissue, it will never recover again.
At least it's what Guyton physiology textbook says.
Very interesting, I have not read into that.
@@iuhjuy1094 how do you get more synapse?
@@HeyIntegrity nobody knows exactly, yet.
Some people get that after recovery and rehabilitation, and some people don't.
Can we stop torturing animals for our own vanity, please?
I agree, but unfortunately much much research has been conducted on animals, even in fields aside from sport science. The sort of "odd" thing is animal research likely has benefited humans in numerous ways, like the medicine field for example.
We have to know shit tho
Why don't you have more subs?
Haha, not sure! :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy don't think about it, just keep it up, your content is gold!!!
I don't know why i didn't find this channel sooner.
How to download your muscle-building ebook plz
www.houseofhypertrophy.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Ultimate-Bench-Guide.pdf
Trypophobia warning
This comment contains nine words consisting of at least three symbols.
You say the same nothing in 30 different ways.
So how does atrophy happen to myofibrils? Will the number of sarcomeres decrease, just as they have increased? How do they decrease, are they broken down for energy?
I believe it would be the number of sarcomeres decreasing :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy So do they retain density? Will the myofibrils be the same thickness, but just shorter? It seems like it would be impractical otherwise, but idk :P