Im currently doing a high school programme called the IB, basically doing Uni work in years 12 and 13 and i decided to do my extended essay in Sports science which the topic consists of Myofibrilar hypertrophy vs sarcoplasmic hypertrophy however i have two choices which i want to do but dont know which one would be best to write 3500 words for and get a good grade.
1)Is sarcoplasmic hypertrophy most beneficial to a rugby player looking to increase muscular strength to enhance performance rather than myofibrilar hypertrophy?
2)Is sarcoplasmic hypertrophy most benefical to high performance athletes looking to increase their maximal strength in compound exercises rather than myofibrilar hypertrophy
1)main argument: That its not more beneficial, same arugment basically as number 2 and that the compound exercises are more relatable to actual rugby actions such as squat and deadlifts transfer onto the pitch musch better.
counter argument: that sarcoplasmic hypertrophy allows better performance as rugby players need to build alot of muscle to protect themselve and get stronger and outsize opponents because if their was a 180 pound who can bench over 300 pounds vs a 275 pounder that benches 225 the 275 pounder will most likely win the contact situation.
main argument: consists that ofc myofibirlar hypertrophy is best way to increase maximal hypertrophy as to stimulate it you have to lift heavy and between reps 1-6.
counter argument: that sarcoplasmic allows an increase in muscle mass meaning theirs more potential for the muscle to grow in strength which can then lead to increase maximal strength and that sarcoplasmic hypertrophy can strengthen smaller muscles such as forearms (wrist curls) cause you wouldnt go very heavy on those movements.
If you have any ideas or criticisms please dont hesistate to say as this is really important to me and my final grade and university!