Which Muscle Fiber Type Atrophies Faster?

[quote]thogue wrote:
If I am understanding correctly, sedentary people have a higher proportion of type2 to type1 but in absolute terms they still have less of both compared to someone who trains?

Otherwise I’m not sure I follow. Why would a sedentary person be better suited to handle a life threatening situation? They don’t train at all, so why would their bodies have adapted type 1 OR type 2s… if anything wouldn’t they be more likely to be doing type 1 tasks during the day than they are to be getting attacked or sprinting?[/quote]

Dude, I already said some of this shit is false info.

But hey, what I do I know.

You don’t base fiber distribution on whether someone is obese.

You don’t base it on ANYTHING but performance (to guess) and BIOPSY(to be sure).

However, I am sure you all will ignore this because I’m the one who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]thogue wrote:
If I am understanding correctly, sedentary people have a higher proportion of type2 to type1 but in absolute terms they still have less of both compared to someone who trains?

Otherwise I’m not sure I follow. Why would a sedentary person be better suited to handle a life threatening situation? They don’t train at all, so why would their bodies have adapted type 1 OR type 2s… if anything wouldn’t they be more likely to be doing type 1 tasks during the day than they are to be getting attacked or sprinting?[/quote]

Dude, I already said some of this shit is false info.

But hey, what I do I know.

You don’t base fiber distribution on whether someone is obese.

You don’t base it on ANYTHING but performance (to guess) and BIOPSY(to be sure).

However, I am sure you all will ignore this because I’m the one who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.[/quote]

Well you’ve made some good posts in this thread, so hopefully people won’t ignore an uneducated pleb like yourself :slight_smile:
My questions earlier in this thread were purposely pedantic, because I believe that some of the statements made by others were only telling half the story at best. Specifically, when the guys says that sedentary people have a higher distribution of type two fibres due to a survival mechanism. Whilst they may have a higher ratio of type two fibres, this is not an adaption, surely it is due to a lack of adaptation?

Regardless, this thread is one of those that some beginners will read, and end up more confused then when they began. I don’t really like these threads.

[quote]lnname wrote:
seems we need some basic physics

F=ma

for a barbell with a mass of m, on a planet with constantant of gravitation g, and a lifter exerting a force of L

L-mg=ma

L=m(a+g)

it should now be obvious that a big L can be atcheived either with a big mass or acceleration
[/quote]
I’d just like to thank you for not abusing the fuck out of that formula, which seems to happen everytime someone talks about force and lifting weights.

And add that that formula leaves a third way to increase force: move north, where you’re closer to the center of the earth, which makes g higher, which makes the weights heavier.

Snow deadlifts FTW!

[quote]thogue wrote:
If I am understanding correctly, sedentary people have a higher proportion of type2 to type1 but in absolute terms they still have less of both compared to someone who trains?

Otherwise I’m not sure I follow. Why would a sedentary person be better suited to handle a life threatening situation? They don’t train at all, so why would their bodies have adapted type 1 OR type 2s… if anything wouldn’t they be more likely to be doing type 1 tasks during the day than they are to be getting attacked or sprinting?[/quote]

I would think that a sedentary person would have more type II due to the fact that the simple tasks that they perform are short but somewhat intense (for a sedentary individual) and usually infrequent, ie: rearranging their living room (it takes them hours), taking out 4 bags of garbage, lifting their sofa to get something that rolled underneath it… You get the picture… obviously they still perform repetitive tasks like washing dishes, vacuming, etc, but these tasks wouldn’t do much for muscle fibre stimulation.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]thogue wrote:
If I am understanding correctly, sedentary people have a higher proportion of type2 to type1 but in absolute terms they still have less of both compared to someone who trains?

Otherwise I’m not sure I follow. Why would a sedentary person be better suited to handle a life threatening situation? They don’t train at all, so why would their bodies have adapted type 1 OR type 2s… if anything wouldn’t they be more likely to be doing type 1 tasks during the day than they are to be getting attacked or sprinting?[/quote]

Dude, I already said some of this shit is false info.

But hey, what I do I know.

You don’t base fiber distribution on whether someone is obese.

You don’t base it on ANYTHING but performance (to guess) and BIOPSY(to be sure).

However, I am sure you all will ignore this because I’m the one who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.[/quote]

I didn’t intend anything I wrote to be a contradiction to what you were saying, I believe you. I’m not sure what part of my post implied I ignored you or didn’t think you knew what you were talking about…

I was trying to understand the theory of the original posts because I thought STB is also pretty knowledgeable.

And for the record I am aware that this discussion is pretty much purely intellectual. It is not going to have an effect on my training. I just read it and was curious lol.

I can’t prove it, but I think FT fibers atrophy first because they are the fibers that undergo hypertrophy in the first place. My understanding is that ST fibers don’t hypertrophy much, if at all due to the facts that fatigue is a critical component of the growth stimulus, and ST fibers do not fatigue during resistance training.

[quote]thogue wrote:
If I am understanding correctly, sedentary people have a higher proportion of type2 to type1 but in absolute terms they still have less of both compared to someone who trains?

Otherwise I’m not sure I follow. Why would a sedentary person be better suited to handle a life threatening situation? They don’t train at all, so why would their bodies have adapted type 1 OR type 2s… if anything wouldn’t they be more likely to be doing type 1 tasks during the day than they are to be getting attacked or sprinting?[/quote]

This is 100% correct. It is a survival mechanism that the baseline for an average human being is a higher distribution of Type II fibers in certain muscle groups in order to be able to survive fight or flight situations. Training causes adaptation to whatever the training stress is. Size is mainly a Type I adaptation because there are more Type I fibers when compared to Type II, Type II fibers are more likely to take on Type I characteristics, and Type I fibers have a whole lot more shit in them.

This is why sprinters are smaller than body builders but run a lot faster.

A sedentary person would not have the same size Type II’s as a highly trained power athlete but the cross sectional area when compared to the Type I cross sectional area is much higher in people who don’t train.

I’m not making this shit up. There are thousands of histochemical studies that say the same thing.

[quote]belligerent wrote:
I can’t prove it, but I think FT fibers atrophy first beause they are the ones that hypertrophy in the first place. My understanding is that ST fibers do not hypertrophy much, if at all. This is because fatigue is a critical component of the growth stimulus, and ST fibers do not fatigue during resistance training.[/quote]

This is very incorrect. Depending on the type of training, volume, speed of movement, intensity, whatever the hell else, will determine the WHAT you are training. To say something like “resistance training” doesn’t really mean anything. Also, due to the number of and how quickly they adapt to training, slow twitch fibers are responsible for most hypertrophy.

Paralysis victims are usually 100% (or very close) type II, if that tells you anything.

[quote]StormTheBeach wrote:

[quote]belligerent wrote:
I can’t prove it, but I think FT fibers atrophy first beause they are the ones that hypertrophy in the first place. My understanding is that ST fibers do not hypertrophy much, if at all. This is because fatigue is a critical component of the growth stimulus, and ST fibers do not fatigue during resistance training.[/quote]

This is very incorrect. Depending on the type of training, volume, speed of movement, intensity, whatever the hell else, will determine the WHAT you are training. To say something like “resistance training” doesn’t really mean anything. Also, due to the number of and how quickly they adapt to training, slow twitch fibers are responsible for most hypertrophy.[/quote]

This is an image of a cross-section of muscle tissue stained to differentiate between fast and slow twitch fibers. Notice that the white fibers are MUCH bigger than the red ones.

[quote]belligerent wrote:

[quote]StormTheBeach wrote:

[quote]belligerent wrote:
I can’t prove it, but I think FT fibers atrophy first beause they are the ones that hypertrophy in the first place. My understanding is that ST fibers do not hypertrophy much, if at all. This is because fatigue is a critical component of the growth stimulus, and ST fibers do not fatigue during resistance training.[/quote]

This is very incorrect. Depending on the type of training, volume, speed of movement, intensity, whatever the hell else, will determine the WHAT you are training. To say something like “resistance training” doesn’t really mean anything. Also, due to the number of and how quickly they adapt to training, slow twitch fibers are responsible for most hypertrophy.[/quote]

This is an image of a cross-section of muscle tissue stained to differentiate between fast and slow twitch fibers. Notice that the white fibers are MUCH bigger than the red ones.
[/quote]

Jesus Christ. Number 1, I am pretty sure that cross section is not from a human. Number 2, it doesnt matter how big the individual fibers are. Hypertrophy is caused by the growth of MANY fibers. Not just one or two. There are many more Type I fibers in humans, for the most part, and like I said before, Type II fibers can easily take on conditional Type I fiber characteristics based on stress applied. More Type I’s+high volume with “resistance training”=hypertrophy everywhere.

[quote]kakno wrote:

[quote]lnname wrote:
seems we need some basic physics

F=ma

for a barbell with a mass of m, on a planet with constantant of gravitation g, and a lifter exerting a force of L

L-mg=ma

L=m(a+g)

it should now be obvious that a big L can be atcheived either with a big mass or acceleration
[/quote]
I’d just like to thank you for not abusing the fuck out of that formula, which seems to happen everytime someone talks about force and lifting weights.

And add that that formula leaves a third way to increase force: move north, where you’re closer to the center of the earth, which makes g higher, which makes the weights heavier.

Snow deadlifts FTW![/quote]

It would also make them heavier due to moving out of line with the rotation of the earth about it’s axis. The closer to the equator the more centripetal force helps you lift.

Too many variables to answer completely…
Nutrition(water intake,calories, macro’s), active lifestyle, sleep cycles, masterbation habits…