NWlifter
Active Member
Yes, Siff proposed a lot of theories - some of them have later been proven, but I don’t think this is one of them. I think it was based on the notion of there being different types of muscle growth, e.g. sarcoplasmic vs. myofibrillar hypertrophy - and I don’t think we have solid evidence of this being a real variable in the process. Greg wrote a good piece on it here:
https://www.strongerbyscience.com/sarcoplasmic-vs-myofibrillar-hypertrophy/
...although I know e.g. Stu Phillips doesn’t think sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is even a thing:
https://twitpl.us/f8NN
Agree, I 'think' he misinterpreted what it really was. Instead of 'sarcoplasmic' hypertrophy, maybe it's more 'water, glycogen, mitochondria' etc. The idea I was meaning though, was the irrational hypertrophy where the cell size outstrips the energy systems if they don't supercompensate to the same degree. I was looking at the part you were speaking about WRT mitochondria (atp generation, etc.). 'Standard' heavy training is shown to stimulate very little to almost no increase in mitochondria, the mitochondrial density drops with hypertrophy. It might be yet another area (besides ribosomes and satellite cell donation) that can put a ceiling on continued hypertrophy?