Sarcoplasmic vs Myofibrillar

[Nik Savic]

Hi guys.

My question today is what is your point of view on sarcoplasmic vs myofibrillar hypertrophy. Do you use or implenent training phases specific for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy?

[Joe]

Nik Savic wrote:

Hi guys.

My question today is what is your point of view on sarcoplasmic vs myofibrillar hypertrophy. Do you use or implenent training phases specific for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy?

IMO it’s one of those things not really worth worrying about. I’ve “nerded out” on it a bit in the past, just to try and understand the proposed mechanism…but I’ve never made any gym decisions based on it, so not really of interest to me, to be honest.

[Nik Savic]

Joe wrote:

[quote quote=19356]Hi guys.

My question today is what is your point of view on sarcoplasmic vs myofibrillar hypertrophy. Do you use or implenent training phases specific for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy?

IMO it’s one of those things not really worth worrying about. I’ve “nerded out” on it a bit in the past, just to try and understand the proposed mechanism…but I’ve never made any gym decisions based on it, so not really of interest to me, to be honest. [/quote]

I see where you are coming from. However adaptations we get from “sarcoplasmic” training is quite different isn’t it ?

[Joe]

Nik Savic wrote:

[quote quote=19357][quote quote=19356]Hi guys.

My question today is what is your point of view on sarcoplasmic vs myofibrillar hypertrophy. Do you use or implenent training phases specific for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy?

IMO it’s one of those things not really worth worrying about. I’ve “nerded out” on it a bit in the past, just to try and understand the proposed mechanism…but I’ve never made any gym decisions based on it, so not really of interest to me, to be honest. [/quote]

I see where you are coming from. However adaptations we get from “sarcoplasmic” training is quite different isn’t it ?[/quote]

The main reason I don’t feel the need to try and train specifically for sarcoplasmic or myofibrillar is I don’t think there is any definitive evidence that they occur separately or work through different mechanisms. So for argument sake I want to focus on sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, so I attempt to focus more on “metabolic pathways” and that style of training…I don’t think there is definitive proof that it is actually the accumulation of metabolites themselves that actually leads to any from of hypertrophy, considering there was still force production necessary to lead to that metabolite accumulation. And that potentially the fatigue that was produced using “metabolic/pump” training parameters, led to more high-threshold motor recruitment, it it was actually still force that was the main driver of hypertrophy, and looking at the metabolic accumulation that came with it may just be correlation, not cause. (This may be why in studies where they try and completely exclude force production, and create metabolite accumulation, they can not show a hypertrophy response). Long story short, I personally think force is likely the only driver of hypertrophy, and should always be the main priority in training. And in the past when I’ve thought there may be benefit to including separate periodized phases focusing on load, metabolic, etc…when load is excluded, the vast majority of individuals (especially natural athletes), lose muscle. That’s why personally I always like to prioritize load in a session as the main driver, and you can still incorporate things that maybe drive force production through fatigue and slow rep speed. And how much a muscle hypertrophies from more contractile tissue, or total volume????‍♂️…don’t really think it’s worth focusing on when it actually comes to gym decisions being made.

[Nik Savic]

Joe wrote:

[quote quote=19359][quote quote=19357][quote quote=19356]Hi guys.

My question today is what is your point of view on sarcoplasmic vs myofibrillar hypertrophy. Do you use or implenent training phases specific for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy?

IMO it’s one of those things not really worth worrying about. I’ve “nerded out” on it a bit in the past, just to try and understand the proposed mechanism…but I’ve never made any gym decisions based on it, so not really of interest to me, to be honest. [/quote]

I see where you are coming from. However adaptations we get from “sarcoplasmic” training is quite different isn’t it ?[/quote]

The main reason I don’t feel the need to try and train specifically for sarcoplasmic or myofibrillar is I don’t think there is any definitive evidence that they occur separately or work through different mechanisms. So for argument sake I want to focus on sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, so I attempt to focus more on “metabolic ways” and that style of training…I don’t think there is definitive proof that it is actually the accumulation of metabolites themselves that actually leads to any from of hypertrophy, considering there was still force production necessary to lead to that metabolite accumulation. And that potentially the fatigue that was produced using “metabolic/pump” training parameters, led to more high-threshold motor recruitment, it it was actually still force that was the main driver of hypertrophy, and looking at the metabolic accumulation that came with it may just be correlation, not cause. (This may be why in studies where they try and completely exclude force production, and create metabolite accumulation, they can not show a hypertrophy response). Long story short, I personally think force is likely the only driver of hypertrophy, and should always be the main priority in training. And in the past when I’ve thought there may be benefit to including separate periodized phases focusing on load, metabolic, etc…when load is excluded, the vast majority of individuals (especially natural athletes), lose muscle. That’s why personally I always like to prioritize load in a session as the main driver, and you can still incorporate things that maybe drive force production through fatigue and slow rep speed. And how much a muscle hypertrophies from more contractile tissue, or total volume????‍♂️…don’t really think it’s worth focusing on when it actually comes to gym decisions being made. [/quote]

Thanks Joe, I completely follow your rationale, as I was nerding about this stuff for some now too. And conclusion is that it still depends on mechanical tension.

But what about using it for other things, i.e. for better glucose uptake, conditioning, lactate tolerance, recovery, etc., which could potentionally have benefits in future training phases. What are your thoughts/experience on this?

[Author]

Posts