Bookmark this thread:     |
Login  | |
|
RE: Explain muscle memory. - May 2 2008 21:26:25
| |
|
Raskolnikov
Posts: 2224
Joined: Apr. 17 2006
From: Margate, arson capital of the UK
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jack5r
The First one and the one I don't really understand, well atleast not in a scientific way, is that if you lift for say a year then stop for a year and then come back to lifting that you will some how have some sort of advantage and be able to gain much faster than someone starting out for the first time. I don't mean an advantage because you have earlier experience of lifting and so know what you are doing. I have seen it mentioned that the muscle's will some how remember that you were once strong and so will get back to that strength faster. How exactly does this work, be as complex as you need to be please.
This is the definition of muscle memory that I'm familiar with
As to whether it has any basis in fact, I have no idea
I do reckon though that a major factor of people getting good gains second time around is that they're less likely to make the same beginner mistakes again with training and nutrition, as mentioned halfway through the paragraph
Just my 2p worth
_____________________________
"I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong" - Bertrand Russell
My training log
| |
|
|
RE: Explain muscle memory. - May 2 2008 22:36:28
| |
|
carl19
Posts: 2889
Joined: Sep. 24 2006
Status: online
|
muscle memory from what i have read
theory 1) stretching of the fascia (bag) around the muscle.... muscle shrinks and bag stays loose..... easier to grow muscle as it doesnt have to figh against tight fascia
theory2) that through years of training an increase in no of muscle fibres occurs hence second time round there is already more there to grow than first time round. some say that this can only happen in animals and some studies have looked into this in humans but i cannot remember the results
theory3) recruitment of fibres happens much quicker and growing can begin earlier in the training programme due to the cns adapting faster tpo lifting weights again
_____________________________
THE MAKE OR BREAK stay Natty or Not JOURNAL
| |
|
|
RE: Explain muscle memory. - May 3 2008 0:54:48
| |
|
Doctor Drake
Posts: 70
Joined: Jan. 31 2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Raskolnikov
quote:
ORIGINAL: jack5r
The First one and the one I don't really understand, well atleast not in a scientific way, is that if you lift for say a year then stop for a year and then come back to lifting that you will some how have some sort of advantage and be able to gain much faster than someone starting out for the first time. I don't mean an advantage because you have earlier experience of lifting and so know what you are doing. I have seen it mentioned that the muscle's will some how remember that you were once strong and so will get back to that strength faster. How exactly does this work, be as complex as you need to be please.
This is the definition of muscle memory that I'm familiar with
As to whether it has any basis in fact, I have no idea
I do reckon though that a major factor of people getting good gains second time around is that they're less likely to make the same beginner mistakes again with training and nutrition, as mentioned halfway through the paragraph
Just my 2p worth
That's the gist of it!
| |
|
|
RE: Explain muscle memory. - May 3 2008 10:27:08
| |
|
cliff_vtr
Posts: 11304
Joined: Apr. 29 2004
From: Nr Bournemouth
Status: offline
|
there is also the "learning" side of things. For example, if I try and do keep-me-ups with a football, I may manage 5 (I am rubbish). If I train keep-me-ups everyday for 1 months I could get to 50. If I stop and come back to it 1yr later I will still probably be able to do more than 10, and will be able to get back to 50 in less time than it took to originally get there.
The brain makes connections, as you learn these connections create a more direct route.
Same with lifting, your body remembers how to lift.
_____________________________
73.25K BW
160K Squat
102.5K Bench
220K Deadlift (3BW)
My Journal
| |
|
|
RE: Explain muscle memory. - May 3 2008 11:44:04
| |
|
beefycol
Posts: 1474
Joined: Mar. 6 2008
Status: offline
|
some good answers there
_____________________________
my journal
great site check it now
STOP WORRYING BOUT BOOZE
NOT HAPPY TILL IM MASSIVE
| |
|
|
RE: Explain muscle memory. - May 3 2008 12:09:53
| |
|
stephen77
Posts: 2205
Joined: Jul. 28 2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: beefycol
quote:
ORIGINAL: buzzer
no one is saying muscles have a memory thats what the phenomenom is commonly known as.
but as no lengthy studies have been done on it most experts can only guess,just as the guy you are quoting is doing.
just about to say that, no point getting in argument over it, there no lenghty studies, and there so many diff write up on it, and alot of stuff you read on the net can also not be true
beefy is right.
as i said above the name is misleading.
I think the proper term is called muscle accomdation.
if you call it muscle memory, lots of people will associate your muscles having memory. eg the last set you do is the muscles you remember comes from. Which is bad trianing advice.
so best call it by its proper name.
| |
|
|
RE: Explain muscle memory. - May 3 2008 12:13:26
| |
|
stephen77
Posts: 2205
Joined: Jul. 28 2005
Status: offline
|
just to add
when i broke my leg.
my right leg muscle shrank to half its normal size after i had the cast taken off.
it took a few days after the cast taken off before i could walk. a few more weeks to run and eventually trian leg again.
but my muscle increase in size very quickly. I gained more size in 8 weeks after the cast had been removed than any other other peroid in my life.
Okay it was very atrophy in the 1st place.
this is my own experience of the "muscle memory" term. i had not stoped trianing for last ten years to experience when bigger.
| |
|
|
RE: Explain muscle memory. - May 3 2008 12:13:57
| |
|
beefycol
Posts: 1474
Joined: Mar. 6 2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: stephen77
quote:
ORIGINAL: beefycol
quote:
ORIGINAL: buzzer
no one is saying muscles have a memory thats what the phenomenom is commonly known as.
but as no lengthy studies have been done on it most experts can only guess,just as the guy you are quoting is doing.
just about to say that, no point getting in argument over it, there no lenghty studies, and there so many diff write up on it, and alot of stuff you read on the net can also not be true
beefy is right.
as i said above the name is misleading.
I think the proper term is called muscle accomdation.
if you call it muscle memory, lots of people will associate your muscles having memory. eg the last set you do is the muscles you remember comes from. Which is bad trianing advice.
so best call it by its proper name.
agreed
_____________________________
my journal
great site check it now
STOP WORRYING BOUT BOOZE
NOT HAPPY TILL IM MASSIVE
| |
|
|
RE: Explain muscle memory. - May 3 2008 15:01:30
| |
|
iaink
Posts: 3215
Joined: Jan. 3 2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
you keep more muscle fibers more than you had first time round
How confidant are you that hyperplasia occure in humans?
_____________________________
"Play Stonehenge!"
| |
|
|
RE: Explain muscle memory. - May 3 2008 15:04:57
| |
|
beefycol
Posts: 1474
Joined: Mar. 6 2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iaink
quote:
you keep more muscle fibers more than you had first time round
How confidant are you that hyperplasia occure in humans?
like me and buzzer agreed there no lenghty studies, and there so many diff write up on it, diff veiws, and alot of stuff you read on the net can also not be true. not 100% confident about anything i read on the net.
_____________________________
my journal
great site check it now
STOP WORRYING BOUT BOOZE
NOT HAPPY TILL IM MASSIVE
| |
|
|
RE: Explain muscle memory. - May 3 2008 15:11:33
| |
|
iaink
Posts: 3215
Joined: Jan. 3 2006
Status: offline
|
Thats about right. As far as I am aware no peer reviewed work has proven hyperplasia in humans, beyond establishing highly exprienced weight trainees have great no. of muscle fibres than a sedantary population. In practice I think it matters little if it dose occur.
_____________________________
"Play Stonehenge!"
| |
|
|
RE: Explain muscle memory. - May 3 2008 17:41:11
| |
|
drewsky
Posts: 2797
Joined: Nov. 2 2005
From: Healthy Action Nutriton Consultancy
Status: offline
|
1st up you have to separate what BB'ers might refer to as muscle memeroy and that, that the rest of the world world would though the basis does overlap
quote:
ORIGINAL: jack5r
The First one and the one I don't really understand, well atleast not in a scientific way, is that if you lift for say a year then stop for a year and then come back to lifting that you will some how have some sort of advantage and be able to gain much faster than someone starting out for the first time. I don't mean an advantage because you have earlier experience of lifting and so know what you are doing. I have seen it mentioned that the muscle's will some how remember that you were once strong and so will get back to that strength faster. How exactly does this work, be as complex as you need to be please.
It's not just the muscle, but in order I would put them as....
Greater knowledge of training and what you're doing in the gym and in the kitchen
As mentioned, nervous system efficiency = more training stimulus than a new trainee
Possibly more vascular capacity/efficiency
Possibly the fascia stretch allowing for more growth
Up regulation of expression of proteins associate with anabolic physiology
Hyperplasia I am not sold on
quote:
ORIGINAL: jack5r
Another one which I am abit iffy with and I am pretty sure it is no more than a theory with little evidence behind it, is that if I was to do 5 sets of 5 reps with heavey weights and then on my last set do 20 reps with a light weight my muscle will somehow remeber the 20 reps better than the heavy reps and so strength gains will not be as good. This seems like rubbish to me as the muscle will of already had all the microtrauma and stress on the muscle/tendons from the heavy sets, the light set surly won't effect this (excluding a bad diet and overtraining). I have seen this thrown around a few times by people who don't seem to understand exactly what it is. Someone asks will a light weight burn out set at the end of my session be good or bad. The reply - It will be bad because of muscle memory. This one is all rubbish or alteast a theory with litte proof and alot of contradictions from other theories?
Are you asking about remembering as in a learned skill or remember as in a training effect? The different load with more reps will be training another set of motor units and as you have fatigued a lot of similar units already there would be a greater than expecected training stimulus on them. There's also the 'flushing' issue as well; lost of BB'ing coaches like to include a high rep set at the end to flood the muscle with blood and thus nutrients and clear waste.
quote:
ORIGINAL: jack5r
The third. Doing the same exercise time after time will stop the muscle growing to its full potential because of muscle memory. I agree with this to some extent. Load, volume, intensity or reps must be increased for the muscle to grow well. I don't agree that this is down to the exercise used though. Benching and cables. For me, load is load and as long as the stress on the muscle is the same the exercise will not make a difference at all. In the past I have heard people talk about using cables to target the inner section of the chest, which is rubbish as you cannot target a section of one muscle. Excluding seperate muscles (actual term?) as I know the chest is split into the major and minor as the delts are split into front, side and rear. So whats the thinking behind this one, just talk?
The body is 'lazy', it has your best interests at heart namely doing as much work as possible with as little effort, the nervous system adapts by becoming more efficient at a task meaning in this context moving as much weight but with less and less motor units stimulated, leaving you with more in the tank to go looking for food or fight off a big cat or some such.
< Message edited by drewsky -- May 3 2008 20:37:19 >
_____________________________
Drew Price BSc MASc
Registered Nutritionist & Certified Strength and Conditioning Coach with:
My Blog
| |
|
|
RE: Explain muscle memory. - May 3 2008 19:15:16
| |
|
Incredible Bulk
Posts: 8681
Joined: Apr. 4 2006
From: Pompey
Status: offline
|
I was 21yrs old and weighed in at 17.5 stone, fair amount of size...17.5" arms, 27" legs.
i stopped bodybuilding for taekwondo for 1.5 years and went down to 12 stone.
retstarted bodybuilding, 1 year later i was back at those stats, another 6 months i had 18" arms and 28" legs
i stopped bodybuilding for MMA last summer and i'm now at 16.5" arms, 24" legs
how long do you think it will take me to get back to my old stats?
a lot shorter than the person who's doing it for the first time thats for sure 
_____________________________
APN Drive/RPM Stack Journal
| |
|
|
RE: Explain muscle memory. - May 3 2008 19:21:35
| |
|
Ak_88
Posts: 11448
Joined: Nov. 6 2005
From: Chelmsford, Essex
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iaink
Thats about right. As far as I am aware no peer reviewed work has proven hyperplasia in humans, beyond establishing highly exprienced weight trainees have great no. of muscle fibres than a sedantary population. In practice I think it matters little if it dose occur.
The only study i've seen concluding hyperplasia is possible was in rats (i think), i they had a 9% increase in fibre formation over 100 weeks of training.
_____________________________
Ak's Journal
200kg Deadlift
| |
|
|
RE: Explain muscle memory. - May 3 2008 19:43:55
| |
|
beefycol
Posts: 1474
Joined: Mar. 6 2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ak_88
quote:
ORIGINAL: iaink
Thats about right. As far as I am aware no peer reviewed work has proven hyperplasia in humans, beyond establishing highly exprienced weight trainees have great no. of muscle fibres than a sedantary population. In practice I think it matters little if it dose occur.
The only study i've seen concluding hyperplasia is possible was in rats (i think), i they had a 9% increase in fibre formation over 100 weeks of training.
i saw something about rats but didnt wanna post it on here lol
_____________________________
my journal
great site check it now
STOP WORRYING BOUT BOOZE
NOT HAPPY TILL IM MASSIVE
| |
|
|
RE: Explain muscle memory. - May 6 2008 7:57:45
| |
|
buzzer
Posts: 1057
Joined: Jul. 26 2006
Status: offline
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: There is still an ongoing debate in the scientific community of whether hyperplasia occurs in humans. The evidence that it does happen, is heavily critized by others. We encourage people to do form their own opinions based on the available research.
Quoting from Kelly (Kelley 1996), "The results of this investigation are similar to a recent narrative review that concluded that muscle fiber hyperplasia 1) consistently occurs as a result of chronic stretch, 2) rarely occurs with overload in the form of compensatory hypertrophy, and 3) has produced mixed results when overload in the form of exercise is employed."
You will hear the term "compensatory hypertrophy" used in stretch overload studies. What this means is that the stretch overload is progressively applied, rather than all at once (i.e. chronic stretch).
What this tells us is that fiber splitting is dependant on the degree of strain (strain = load + microtrauma) experienced by the fibers as a factor of time. In compensatory hypertrophy models, the tissue is allowed to adapt to a lighter load before a more severe load is applied. With chronic stretch the max load is applied all at once and isn’t changed throughout the observation period.
Intermittent stretch is similar to chronic stretch in that the max load is applied all at once, however, it is “intermittently” applied. So it is applied then it is removed, and then reapplied, etc. This has tended to result in hypertrophy without fiber splitting.
It used to be thought that muscle fibers would only split after they have hypertrophied, almost as a result of the hypertrophy itself. But a recent study which I just read the other day but can’t seem to find at the moment, demonstrated fiber splitting can occur before fiber hypertrophy.
1: Kelley G. Mechanical overload and skeletal muscle fiber hyperplasia: a meta-analysis. J Appl Physiol. 1996 Oct;81(4):1584-8.
2: Antonio J, Gonyea WJ. Muscle fiber splitting in stretch-enlarged avian muscle. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1994 Aug;26(8):973-7.
3: Antonio J, Gonyea WJ. Progressive stretch overload of skeletal muscle results in hypertrophy before hyperplasia. J Appl Physiol. 1993 Sep;75(3):1263-71.
4: Antonio J, Gonyea WJ. Role of muscle fiber hypertrophy and hyperplasia in intermittently stretched avian muscle.
J Appl Physiol. 1993 Apr;74(4):1893-8.
"Title: Effects of anabolic steroids on the muscle cells of strength-trained athletes.
Researchers: Kadi F, Eriksson A, Holmner S, Thornell LE Department of Integrative Medical Biology, Umea University, Sweden.
Source: Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999 Nov;31(11):1528-34
Summary:
Athletes who use anabolic steroids get larger and stronger muscles. How this is reflected at the level of the muscle fibers has not yet been established and was the topic of this investigation. METHODS: Muscle biopsies were obtained from the trapezius muscles of high-level power lifters who have reported the use of anabolic steroids in high doses for several years and from high-level power lifters who have never used these drugs. Enzyme-immunohistochemical investigation was performed to assess muscle fiber types, fiber area, myonuclear number, frequency of satellite cells, and fibers expressing developmental protein isoforms.
RESULTS: The overall muscle fiber composition was the same in both groups. The mean area for each fiber type in the reported steroid users was larger than that in the nonsteroid users (P < 0.05). The number of myonuclei and the proportion of central nuclei were also significantly higher in the reported steroid users (P < 0.05). Likewise, the frequency of fibers expressing developmental protein isoforms was significantly higher in the reported steroid users group (P < 0.05). [these researchers found embryonic fiber development in the nonsteroid using group as well...just not as much as in the group using.]
CONCLUSION: Intake of anabolic steroids and strength-training induce an increase in muscle size by both hypertrophy and the formation of new muscle fibers (hyperplasia). We propose that activation of satellite cells is a key process and is enhanced by the steroid use. The incorporation of the satellite cells into preexisting fibers to maintain a constant nuclear to cytoplasmic ratio seems to be a fundamental mechanism for muscle fiber growth. Although all the subjects in this study have the same level of performance, the possibility of genetic differences between the two groups cannot be completely excluded."
So, there is really no argument anymore among groups up to date on their muscle physiology....
What percentage of muscle growth is due to hyperplasia, and what percentage is due to hypertrophy?
It depends on the type of training stimulus.
Ultimately, ALL permanent muscle growth is due to hyperplasia. This is evidenced by the fact that biopsies of bodybuilders often don't show any difference in fiber CSA than non-trained individuals. In other words, the increase in muscle size is attributed to a greater number of fibers.
Muscle fiber hypertrophy is temporary and only remains as long as the loading is consistent. When training stops for long periods, hypertrophy will reverse. Nevertheless, if training has been maintained for years, some size stays until sarcopenia sets in later in life.
If hyperplasia is a fact, why shouldn't we embrace the notion that "muscle shaping" is possible ? Perhaps we can create a "peak" in the biceps after all?
You can’t control where the most tension will be experienced in a muscle when the sarcomeres are arranged in series. It’s like hooking a bunch of identical rubber brands together, then pulling from each end and expecting anyone rubber band to experience more tension than any other. The load will be evenly distributed from end to end over all the rubber bands equally. The is why you can’t “shape” a muscle with training. Why do you think Synthol is so popular among IFBB pros?
(Just for the sake of detail, the fibers arranged towards the distal end of the muscle converge on the tendon. As a result of their converging orientation there is often more microtrauma experienced in those fibers than other deeper and/or more proximally oriented fibers.)
But don’t lose hope, all you need to do to have a bigger peak on your biceps is build bigger biceps.
< Message edited by buzzer -- May 6 2008 8:01:00 >
| |
|
|
RE: Explain muscle memory. - May 6 2008 10:26:58
| |
|
iaink
Posts: 3215
Joined: Jan. 3 2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
The only study i've seen concluding hyperplasia is possible was in rats (i think), i they had a 9% increase in fibre formation over 100 weeks of training.
....and avian muscle.
As for the above study it is interesting but still not conclusive proof of hyperplasia in humans and somewhat speculatory.
_____________________________
"Play Stonehenge!"
| |
|
|
RE: Explain muscle memory. - May 6 2008 11:15:35
| |
|
buzzer
Posts: 1057
Joined: Jul. 26 2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iaink
quote:
The only study i've seen concluding hyperplasia is possible was in rats (i think), i they had a 9% increase in fibre formation over 100 weeks of training.
....and avian muscle.
As for the above study it is interesting but still not conclusive proof of hyperplasia in humans and somewhat speculatory.
quote:
CONCLUSION: Intake of anabolic steroids and strength-training induce an increase in muscle size by both hypertrophy and the formation of new muscle fibers (hyperplasia). We propose that activation of satellite cells is a key process and is enhanced by the steroid use
| |
|
|
Printable Version
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread