I posted a thread a few weeks ago about sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar hypertrophy.
The majority of you dispelled it as a myth or said that there just wasnt enough evidence to show that you can train for one type, more than the other.
Im posting this thread to find out abit more, and if those that tuned in and commented before, and anyone else that has anhing to add can do so, i'd be really greatful.
with Sarcoplasimic Hypertrophy, The amount of sarcoplasm increases inside the muscle, which makes i look bigger. Apparently though it doesn't last very long, and will disappear fairly quickly if you stop training.
Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy also has no direct carry over to strength because it doesn't have the ability to contract and relax, as it isn't real muscle. Its also said that it gives you a puffier look to your muscles.
Myofibrillar hypertrophy on the other hand, is the actual growth of muscle fibres. The muscle looks more dense, and theres a direct carry over to strength.
Apparently different rep ranges trigger different types of hypertrophy, and although neither happen exclusively to the other, training in a higher rep range, provides the lifter with more sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, and training with a lower rep range, gives you more myofibrillar hypertrophy.
Sarcoplasmic hyp is utilized more by pro bodybuilders, and myofibrillar triggered by powerlifters and strength athletes.
This was what most of you said there was no valid evidence for.
I'm well into my program and diet now, so I'm just asking out of pure interest.
What I want to know is this.
How did these theories come about? How did they become twisted, and whats the real truth.
If this isn't it, then what IS the reason, that powerlifters often look denser and than bodybuilders, and why do the pro bodybuilders, , often look more puffy?