Talk:Muscle hypertrophy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KyleAgnew.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bostonian49.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment

I think this section is interesting, but it should get a little more layman and a little more general in the info, if you ask me. Rhetth 15:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Truth or lies?

The part about need 'alot' of protein isn't true. There is alot of contradictory evidence. Bodybuilding is about eating 'calories'.

We dont need unnecssary body builder images .

This whole article is based on false science? In muscle hypertrophy there is no increase in myocyte numbers as this description is reserved for muscle hyperplasia. An increase in muscle size and number would be a combination of hypertrophy and hyperplasia? I guess it's ok for roid heads doing a little research, but it is not medically sound science. I think this whole page needs revamping. Skeletal muscle hypertrophy gives rise to and increased number of crossbridges, mitochondria, etc but NOT and increased number of myocytes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hookemdustin (talk • contribs) 00:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"Bodybuilding is about eating 'calories'." Yeah, but this entry is about muscle, not fat, building. I've been cutting calories, doing lots of protein, and still seeing steady strength and muscle mass gains. Of course I'm getting calories from fat I'm burning off, so that does not exclude the importance of calories, but eating 'a lot of protein' is a given and more fundamental to muscular hypertrophy than calories, which are more fundamental to adipose hypertrophy. Ian Goddard (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Nitrogen balance and beneficial protein intake related to anabolic steroid user (2g/lb) and non-using strength athletes (1-1,5g/lb) should be mentioned. One might start here with research: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/protein-requirements-for-strength-and-power-athletes.html Or dig up some decent studies by themselves. :) 78.54.151.57 (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree, this whole page is terrible. False science is the best way to describe the page. It is geared towards bodybuilding and it should not be. It has to be more general. None of bodybuilding's principles are "scientifically" verified, they are experimentally verified without the scientific method. What works for some does not work for others, which is a huge hint that something is TERRIBLY wrong with the principles of bodybuilding. Please someone with knowledge of the subject (not me) start revamping this page! Brantunger (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Either scrap it or describe it

I am wondering about the necessity of this sentance, the last in the first paragraph on nutrition:

• "There is disagreement over the necessity of artificial protein supplements (such as shakes and bars) versus maintaining a less processed diet high in lean meats such as fish or chicken."

So while this is a great point, it is the only piece of info in the sections. I suggest we either remove it or expand on it. Rhetth 14:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Cut and pasted section?

Unfortunately, most of the strength training section of this article is a rewritten version of this web page:

• http://muscle.ucsd.edu/musintro/hypertrophy.shtml

Maybe we should scrap it and start over, since it's pretty contextual and hard to read in the first place. Rhetth 15:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, lets create a good article by whatever means necessary. Lord Metroid 12:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations and Original Research

No citations whatsoever and most of the aticle summarizes things without citing the summarizer or who is doing the summarizing which is practically the definition of OR. Quadzilla99 19:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this article Medical or Bodybuilder how-to?

There seems to be a confusion in this page. Is it a medical description of the process of muscular hypertrophy or a 'tips for body-building' page?

It seems like someone has, somewhat crudely, inserted advice for bodybuilders sporadically throughout the article.

I would suggest that, although there is certainly value in alluding to body-building in an article on muscle growth, there is a better place for 2nd-person advice (e.g."Also leave about 45-60sec rest between sets.") than here.Tox Rowlang 09:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Can We Turn This Into A Real Wikipedia Article?

Not only is this article a "tips for bodybuilding" article but is is not even complete in the topics its supposed to describe. I came to this article looking for the methods(s) to increase muscle mass by the method of "Increase in the number of nuclei within each muscle fiber" and yet there is not single piece of info passed that heading!24.83.178.11 16:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)BeeCier

What about resting?

There is no information about the importance of resting after training.

That would be in the resistance training article. WLU 21:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually rest is one of the most important factors for muscular hypertrophy. Your muscles grow while you're sleeping, therefore without rest your muscles wont grow. Heaton kyle (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Picture?

Can you explain how the person in the picture has "extensive muscle hypertrophy?" Also, this individual has never competed in any bodybuilding contest, and therefore should not be considered a "bodybuilder". If you want "extensive muscle hypertrophy" then why not put up a picture of an IFBB pro, instead of someone who could easily be mistaken for a swimmer or track athlete. The Gustavo Badell picture floating around would be an excellent choice. Can't wait to see what Wikidudeman has to say about this one.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.98.18.94 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 5 July 2007.

I think it's fine. WLU 23:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's fine. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Judging from his edits, Wikidudeman is obviously trying to push this picture of himself into every article he can. I would recommend taking them down. 24.98.18.94 02:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not me. It's someone named "Adam Abeles" who allowed me to use the image. He released it under GNU Free Documentation License on a message board and I uploaded it and published it on wikipedia. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The picture is a good one because there is no distracting background and the subject is just standing. Also, it shows a natural level of hypertrophy that's not outrageously exaggerated by steroids. It's contractile hypertrophy attainable through weight and strength training, not sarcoplasmic hypertrophy through bodybuilding. WLU 11:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Weak argument, how do you know this man did not take steroids? You need to research the topic more, most steroids lead to myofibrillar hypertrophy in the long run. Do you think that anabolic steroids are prescribed by doctors to patients with atrophy in order to cause sarcoplasmic hypertrophy? And why wouldn't you want the largest man you could find for the picture to emphasize your point. There are some natural body builders that are much much larger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.9.13.88 (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hypertrophy delays

The sentence "It can take as long as two months for actual hypertrophy to begin." on the Protein synthesis section is rather confusing. It does not indicate why hypertrophy does not begin immediately, what the "usual" amount of time until it begins is (if two months is the maximum, what is the average?) or what occurs in the muscles during this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cc juju (talk • contribs) 21:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Muscle gains w/o strength gains?

This is a really nice and clean entry. But it says: "it is possible for muscles to grow larger without becoming much stronger.[5]" The purported reference is: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15947721. But where is the claim supported in the source? Perhaps the full text has the data, but the claim also seems to be illogical. If actual muscle mass has increased in an individual, as opposed to mere sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, there must be greater strength unless the nervous system became weaker, which is not likely to occur alongside myofibrillar hypertrophy. So I question both the accuracy of this claim as well as its claim to being supported by the cited study.

It could be accurately stated: "it is possible for muscles to look larger without becoming much stronger." to account for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. But to say "it is possible for muscles to grow larger" directly implies myofibrillar hypertrophy, which entails increased strength. Ian Goddard (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You'd have to ask the person who added it, but it's reasonable to assume they are accurately representing the article. I see it as splitting hairs - to not include the sarcoplasm in the "muscle" strikes me as an odd interpretation since the difference between a myofibril and the sarcoplasm is only visible with a pretty good microscope. When they were measuring cross-sectional area, one would assume that they were measuring the cross-section of the whole muscle, not merely the contractile components (which I do not believe would be visible in an MRI). If we truly need it, I could probably get a copy of the physical journal article at my university library. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 18:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Good points WLU. I acquired the full study in PDF format and find nothing in it to support the claim. I could send it to you for your review in case I'm missing the relevant data (go to my wiki page and follow the link to my yahoo page, my email is my yahoo username + @yahoo.com). Ian Goddard (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Late reply. Please e-mail it to me. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me as well the abstract cited does not support the statment and the "lay summary" in the NYT refers to a different study(the sample sizes are considerably different).The statement "some people can gain muscle size but not much strength; others can gain strength but not much size" would appear to support the WP statement "it is possible for muscles to grow larger without becoming much stronger", but certainly does not support the previous WP statement that strength and size are "not necessarily well correlated".Perhaps my interpretation of the statements are incorrect?Emetz564 (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Natural hypertrophy

I think saying it stops in the late teens is wrong; mid 20's would be it. It's not unusual for men to fill out (i.e. musculature becomes more robust, bone growth thickness-wise) substantially in their 20's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.88.195 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 7 December 2008

Muscle hypertrophy can occur well into old age. There are a number of research studies showing that aged people (60+) can still achieve muscle hypertrophy through weight training, albeit often to a lesser degree than younger people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.24.58 (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Issues

It would be nice to have a little more detail about the science involved in sarcomerogenesis and muscle growth. Not enough citations, get on pubmed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfarl34 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. All my contributions were cut. A lot of people come to wikipedia to get straight forward scientific explanation. This should be more of a translational page for the meatheads that are obviously attracted by the body building sections you are posting, but want to understand the process in-depth at a cellular level. You should consider more elaborate cited science or a new title. That bodybuilder pic caption should be changed as well. He has low body fat, not extensive hypertrophy. Markus Ruhl has extensive hypertrophy, look him up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfarl34 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfarl34 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfarl34 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC) 

sarcoplasmic vs. myofibrillar hypertrophy?

This is mentioned several times in the article, a "nice" heritage from some of the popular books on strength training written by physiologists who THINK they know muscle cell biology. What's the status on this article, do you think it should de pulled in the medcial/science direction or the fitness/training/conditioning direction? I say the medical/science, as most of the knowledge on the latter is very anecdotal and thus unfit for wiki use.

regarding the sarcoplasmic myofibrillar issue, I wrote up a litte thing I'd paste into the "types of hypertrophy section" unless someone argues against it.

It is a common misconception in the fitness community that there are two different types of muscular hypertrophy, i.e. sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar. This misconception most likely stems from faulty reading of science literature. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is thought to occur when the intracellular fluid surrounding muscle contractile protein expands, while myofibrillar hypertrophy is when the contractiel protein mass expands. In protein synthesis measurements using stable isotope tracers it is common to do a fractioning of the muscle homogenate into myofibrillar, nuclear, mitochondrial and membrane fraction and measure protein synthesis independently in each of these fractions. But this fractioning is very poorly validated and as such it has never been confirmed if the contents in each of these fractions actually corresponds to its name. In real life however, almost (>90%) all the protein of muscle cells and even more of the crosssectional area is myofibrillar. Therefore, even if the sarcoplasmic portion as measured in the literature really represents the sarcoplasmic, the relative contribution to overall muscle size is diminutive, even in bodybuilders.

Anders Incognito 14:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This seemed really fishy to me when I read about the subject, you would think there would be more clearer articles floating around about this subject but a quick search suggests maybe not. I see your post is from 2009 yet this distinction is still on the main article. I would suggest renewing this suggestion for 2020 calling for appropriate evidence in regards to the sarcoplasmic/myofibrillar hypertrophy concept. Jamesniederle (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Temporary increase in size

Is it true that muscles expand temporarily for a few minutes or hours after exercise, and if so, what is the mechanism behind it? -- Beland (talk) 06:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any citations available, but there is a "pump" after excercise. I'm pretty sure it's because of increased bloodflow to the muscles. Is this something we might want to include in the article? Quietmarc (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

'latest' Research section needed

To show how much protein instigates growth. --Ericg33 (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's do this ;o)

I will be giving this article some special attention in the next couple of weeks. I can be considered an expert in the field (PhD in muscle biology and professional S&C coach and personal trainer). I will be dealing with this in more medical/scientific way and with much less bodybuilding/fitness broscience/metascience. I'm fairly new as a wikipedian, so please bear with me ;o) Can anyone point me towards a link that specifies how references are used? Are there any pictures of bodybuilders in the Commons? microscope pictures of muscle sections? Anders — Preceding unsigned comment added by Incognito dk (talk • contribs) 07:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Tone?...

An anonymous user has just added the WP:TONE template; although I agree that the article certainly needs improvement, I don't find any specific content that does not adhere to WP:TONE guidelines. Taurus (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete this article

The first paragraph is such a load of crap without a sinlge citation that I didn't bother reading the rest. Defenitly written by bunch of gym bros rather than well informed writers.

Unsigned, unsubstantiated comment; not helpful or productive. We remove unsourced content (if no appropriate citations can be produced) and improve poorly written content. If you feel such improvements should be made, then make them; that's the point. Blacksun1942 (talk) 12:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Ideal repetition and resistance?

Do you think it might help explain what a resistance and rep ranges are needed to help distinguish the differences between myofibrillar hypertrophy and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy? It may help the differences to be able to be seen in more of a visual sense. February 23, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeerdman (talk • contribs) 02:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

6 reps for strong little muscles, 12 for big weak muscles

This article gives an inaccurate picture of how much of a difference can be made by tweaking the number of reps.

As I wrote in the intro, competitive strongmen and bodybuilders have comparable strength. Elite bodybuilders bench press 240kg - and that's a real bench press, not an ultra-wide grip bounce-of-your-sternum press which the powerlifters use to push up a higher weight in competitions. Similarly, elite strongmen have huge muscles, despite training for strength. Gronky (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Genetics

This article needs more information on genetics and biochemistry. I noticed a while back 'Hulk' protein, Grb10, controls muscle growth but I'm having difficulty finding a good narrative review. II | (t - c)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://muscle.ucsd.edu/musintro/hypertrophy.shtml. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Factors affecting hypertrophy/In sports

I have included/expanded upon diet and training variables as they serve important factors that affect muscle hypertrophy. I have also included instances where muscle hypertrophy was useful for certain skill based sports.Bostonian49 (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Factual challenge to sarcoplasmic vs. myofibrillar

This page cites a scientific study which it claims disproves the theory of sarcoplasmic vs. myofibrillar hypertrophy. I've tagged this section as disputed; I think we'll have to dig into medical sources to see if there is a scientific consensus or if the truth of the matter is uncertain (in which case the article should present that complexity). -- Beland (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I read the article and the paper it mentions, and I am not sure I understand correctly but in the discussion section the authors state that they "did not observe any sign of individual muscle fiber enlargement in either thigh or shoulder muscles of successful bodybuilders. Thus, despite the considerably greater body weight per height and less body fat in bodybuilders compared to habitually trained and age matched men, mean fiber area did not differ" which might be evidence that the muscle hypertrophy was not a result of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. (although the paper does state that their data is not conclusive due to the limitation of the small subject size).

However, in a recently published paper (2019), in which the authors review evidence that either support or refute Resistance Training-Induced Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy, the authors conclude that "there are still significant knowledge gaps in the human literature regarding how different forms of training or training duration affect morphological adaptations"

Based on the aforementioned evidence, I think it would be appropriate to either remove the "Myofibrillar vs. sarcoplasmic hypertrophy" section, or add a passage talking about what the current evidence say about it. LedaThemis (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

potential changes

   The name of the article I choose is Muscle Hypertrophy which is all about the muscles in our body’s and how they grow mass and strength. I felt my article stayed on track and was very relevant through the whole article. If i were to add more details and information on the types of exercises that you could do for each of the different types of training for different results. I also could add in Recovery information for your muscles such as protein and rest. KyleAgnew (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Kyle Agnew

Addition to Strength/Anaerobic Training Portion

I think an addition to the "anaerobic training portion" would be beneficial. This article goes into extensive detail about types of hypertrophy training. This includes off season training, pre-season, "peak week", and post competition. Each period of a bodybuilder's season and training style can show which types of training styles are effective during which portion of a traditional season. It can also show which training style best reflects muscle hypertrophy (on average) and would go into further detail instead of just "Muscular hypertrophy can be increased through strength training and other short-duration, high-intensity anaerobic exercises." Thebiggestlifter (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

(ADDITION TO POST)

I found more articles about strength training. This article does an experimental study in which training is separated by a power-lifting training group versus a bodybuilding training group. Measurements of hypertrophy between the groups was determined through muscle strength and muscle thickness. What I found to be quite intriguing was that, statistically speaking, there was almost no different in terms of volume loads afterwards. This also applies to muscle strength and muscle thickness, which, because of that (verbatim quote from article),"some researchers have speculated that metabolite accumulation may be more important than high force development in optimizing muscle growth." The only problem I see with is that it's one study, but I think it's still relevant to the not just training, but nutrition. Thebiggestlifter (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Addition to Nutrition Portion of Article

I think that the "protein synthesis" portion of the article does an excellent job, but a paragraph I'd like to add is one perhaps in detail about amino acids. In this article, protein quality is touched upon including the amino acid, leucine. The article, which I'll quote verbatim, states "the amino acid leucine in particular appears to be especially important as a “metabolic trigger” of MPS [32]. A sufficient concentration of leucine has been suggested to be necessary to reach a “leucine threshold” which is required to maximally stimulate MPS [33]."

In addition, the article also states, "In general, on a gram per gram basis, animal-based protein sources typically contain more leucine and EAA, although there are notable exceptions." This could be important to add to protein synthesis as the better the quality of protein, the more leucine and EAA, and thus better protein synthesis maximization. Thebiggestlifter (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)