T Nation

Types of Hypertrophy?

I just realized that in order to get bigger, the only way is to get stronger. Am I correct? But I once heard that there were different kinds of hypertrophy, like sarcoplasmic and myofibrial, or something like that?

Is that a harsh truth that we must all consider- the only to get bigger is to get stronger?

Why is it harsh?

I can’t see any drawbacks to being stronger.

[quote]Ghost22 wrote:
Why is it harsh?

I can’t see any drawbacks to being stronger.[/quote]

It’s harsh because they are finally realizing that curling 15lbs dumbbells for 500 reps hasn’t made anyone arms reach 20". Now they have to actually work hard and sweat.

It was so easy, I’m sure, when they believed that simply walking into the gym made you huge and that, as long as you didn’t want to be gigantic like Coleman, you could get away with less work and less focus and still look like a cover model.

Reality bites, huh?

[quote]B.b. in stress! wrote:
I just realized that in order to get bigger, the only way is to get stronger. Am I correct? But I once heard that there were different kinds of hypertrophy, like sarcoplasmic and myofibrial, or something like that?

Is that a harsh truth that we must all consider- the only to get bigger is to get stronger?[/quote]

Also, the dumbest concept was the brief UNSUPPORTED (as far as humans or even real world data) notion that bodybuilders somehow have much greater “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” as if this means they have less real muscle fibers and their muscles are simply inflated with “sarcoplasm”. Its only conclusion is to lead to people separating strength from size which made no sense to begin with.

Without additional size, your body is LIMITED in the strength it can gain. That means guys who expect to stay the same size but somehow get stronger than they would if they trained for BOTH size and strength are a little misinformed.

Outside of a relation to sports based on weight limits or classes, it loses any real world application other than the now infamous “relative strength” crap shouted by small guys.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
B.b. in stress! wrote:
I just realized that in order to get bigger, the only way is to get stronger. Am I correct? But I once heard that there were different kinds of hypertrophy, like sarcoplasmic and myofibrial, or something like that?

Is that a harsh truth that we must all consider- the only to get bigger is to get stronger?

Also, the dumbest concept was the brief UNSUPPORTED (as far as humans or even real world data) notion that bodybuilders somehow have much greater “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” as if this means they have less real muscle fibers and their muscles are simply inflated with “sarcoplasm”. Its only conclusion is to lead to people separating strength from size which made no sense to begin with.

Without additional size, your body is LIMITED in the strength it can gain. That means guys who expect to stay the same size but somehow get stronger than they would if they trained for BOTH size and strength are a little misinformed.

Outside of a relation to sports based on weight limits or classes, it loses any real world application other than the now infamous “relative strength” crap shouted by small guys.[/quote]

While I think that is a bit oversimplified, I agree with what he said. Prof. X is a pretty big dude and something tells me it’s not all “evil” sarcoplasm.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Reality bites, huh?[/quote]

I agree, I agree Professor. Reality does indeed bite. I don’t know why you need me to validate your argument though.

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:

Prof. X is a pretty big dude and something tells me it’s not all “evil” sarcoplasm.[/quote]

Sure it is. I hear he injects himself with evil sarcoplasm allllll the time…

In reality, ProfX is on the ball. While neurological adaptations can certainly account for quite a bit of strength gains, there’s a point where an increase in muscle fibers, and therefore muscle size, becomes necessary to increase strength.

There’s also nothing wrong with that, for the record. Unless you’re a lazy piece of crap, in which case you’ll never go far in the weight game anyway.

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:

While I think that is a bit oversimplified.[/quote]

Oversimplified? We’ve been through this.
http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=910872

Should I have retyped the entire thread?

I mean, shit, that came up as the first entry when using the search engine…so why aren’t people using the search engine?

[quote]Professor X wrote:
jtrinsey wrote:

While I think that is a bit oversimplified.

Oversimplified? We’ve been through this.
http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=910872

Should I have retyped the entire thread?

I mean, shit, that came up as the first entry when using the search engine…so why aren’t people using the search engine?[/quote]

I know we’ve been through this. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it seems to me like you don’t attribute any validity to the theory that there are two different types of hypertrophy.

I’m not asserting that they are independent, but I think it is somewhat foolish to deny that they are totally different. To me it is one of those 10% things, but I do think there is a difference in hypertrophy resulting from different training methods. However, I’m hesistant to debate this further as practical experience trumps theory and you obviously have a lot more experience and seem to have gotten a lot better results than I have… so far.

Plus I mostly agree with you. I just disagree over some little details which may or may not be important.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
so why aren’t people using the search engine?[/quote]

Are you honestly still wondering that?

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
To me it is one of those 10% things,[/quote]

To me, it’s not even that because NOTHING supports this but theory. Yet, this hasn’t stopped people from creating entire training strategies and selling routines based on it.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
jtrinsey wrote:
To me it is one of those 10% things,

To me, it’s not even that because NOTHING supports this but theory. Yet, this hasn’t stopped people from creating entire training strategies and selling routines based on it. [/quote]

I obviously disagree, but that’s fine.

Not like it really should have an impact on one’s training anyway.

I really see no drawback of getting stronger.

the only reason y i said it was a harsh truth is because if a bber wants to bring up a lagging body part and in particular, a muscle that has very little strength like the middle back, they would have to go heavy on isolation exercises which really doesn’t feel good on the joints (well at least to mine they don’t).

besides that, getting stronger is no problem for me and enjoy it more so than anything.

professor x, sorry if i didn’t search but i wasn’t so sure about the actual names of hypertrophy. it seems like i made a lucky guess

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I mean, shit, that came up as the first entry when using the search engine…so why aren’t people using the search engine?[/quote]

Because then they’d have to shut down the forum because there is absolutely nothing new under the sun when it comes to weight training.

[quote]B.b. in stress! wrote:
I just realized that in order to get bigger, the only way is to get stronger. Am I correct? But I once heard that there were different kinds of hypertrophy, like sarcoplasmic and myofibrial, or something like that?

Is that a harsh truth that we must all consider- the only to get bigger is to get stronger?[/quote]

A person who can bench press 135 pounds looks like he can bench press 135 pounds. A person who can bench press 400 pounds looks like he can bench press 400 pounds.

Are there people who truly think that there are guys with huge chests who are only benching 135 pounds?

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
B.b. in stress! wrote:
I just realized that in order to get bigger, the only way is to get stronger. Am I correct? But I once heard that there were different kinds of hypertrophy, like sarcoplasmic and myofibrial, or something like that?

Is that a harsh truth that we must all consider- the only to get bigger is to get stronger?

A person who can bench press 135 pounds looks like he can bench press 135 pounds. A person who can bench press 400 pounds looks like he can bench press 400 pounds.

Are there people who truly think that there are guys with huge chests who are only benching 135 pounds?[/quote]

In all fairness there are guys who compete in lighter weight class in powerlifting that don’t look very muscular, yet they are strong.

Heck, even EC doesn’t look like he can pull over 600, but he can.

Put a different way, EC pulls about 200# less than Coleman and EC isn’t even as big as one of RC legs.

I’m sure that has a lot to do with why some newbies don’t think that you don’t have to be strong to be big.

[quote]B.b. in stress! wrote:
I just realized that in order to get bigger, the only way is to get stronger. Am I correct? But I once heard that there were different kinds of hypertrophy, like sarcoplasmic and myofibrial, or something like that?

Is that a harsh truth that we must all consider- the only to get bigger is to get stronger?[/quote]

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1316619

[quote]TreadStone wrote:
In all fairness there are guys who compete in lighter weight class in powerlifting that don’t look very muscular, yet they are strong.

Heck, even EC doesn’t look like he can pull over 600, but he can.

Put a different way, EC pulls about 200# less than Coleman and EC isn’t even as big as one of RC legs.

I’m sure that has a lot to do with why some newbies don’t think that you don’t have to be strong to be big.[/quote]

Then those same people need to exercise their minds. Just because it’s possible to be strong and “smallish” does not mean it’s possible to be weak and big. These are two different things.

If there is NO ONE who is big but also weak, then the conclusion to draw is that you can’t be both weak and big. How they reach a different conclusion astounds me.

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
TreadStone wrote:
In all fairness there are guys who compete in lighter weight class in powerlifting that don’t look very muscular, yet they are strong.

Heck, even EC doesn’t look like he can pull over 600, but he can.

Put a different way, EC pulls about 200# less than Coleman and EC isn’t even as big as one of RC legs.

I’m sure that has a lot to do with why some newbies don’t think that you don’t have to be strong to be big.

Then those same people need to exercise their minds. Just because it’s possible to be strong and “smallish” does not mean it’s possible to be weak and big. These are two different things.

If there is NO ONE who is big but also weak, then the conclusion to draw is that you can’t be both weak and big. How they reach a different conclusion astounds me. [/quote]

Why is this surprising? When you see a small guy pulling over 600lbs, it’s hardly a stretch of the imagination that some people will conclude that there is little relationship between size and strength.

And the reality is actually closer to the middle than some would suggest. If there were a direct relationship between strength and size EC, and guys like him, wouldn’t be that small.

Obviously there is way more to it than just “Get strong, noob!”

awaits for someone to assume that I’m suggesting training with pink DB