bodytut
patreon
MUSCLE GROWTH THEORIES
🕑 Added 2024-02-15 01:02:21 +0000 UTCDo you know what makes your muscles grow? Most people will say yes. Weight-lifting exercises. Unfortunately, this is a bird’s-eye view of the matter, since a tie layer deals with heavy weights daily, but doesn’t get any bigger. Even biochemists who study muscle cell growth cannot unambiguously say what makes our muscles grow. And this is very sad because different explanations of this process, longed-for for any bodybuilder, suggest different roads to result. In other words, if we knew exactly what makes our muscles grow, we could better develop our training and recovery.
WHAT WE KNOW AND WHAT WE DON’T
By and large, we know the INPUT and we know the OUTPUT, but we don’t know what’s going on with muscle growth in between. We all know that WORKOUT disrupts homeostasis (THIS IS INPUT) and this may lead to muscle growth through protein synthesis (THIS IS OUTPUT).
We even know that protein synthesis is triggered by a number of factors that affect nuclear DNA. The ultimate impact scheme is quite simple: a certain “muscle protein layout template” is created based on DNA information. This “template” is called messenger RNA. Once created, it leaves the nucleus (with DNA) into the cell itself, where it builds protein molecules. Your cells are growing. Your muscles are growing.
In other words, the RNA molecule is a kind of drawing, whereby the cell’s free amino acids are combined in a certain order to create the desired protein. Moreover, the “drawing” is reusable. Many protein molecules can be built from one RNA molecule.
Well? It seems that THIS IS IT! Do we know now what makes our muscles grow? I also thought for a very long time that everything was that simple. And it took me ages to understand why scientists so frequently say they “do not know the growth mechanisms”. I mean they’re plain to see. BUT alas, my friends. It’s a hundred times more complicated than it might seem at the first glance. Let’s go back to our chain. WORKOUT - IMBALANCE - FACTORS-NUCLEAR DNA - RNA - PROTEIN SYNTHESIS... Is that right? Yes, but take a closer look at the IMBALANCE - FACTORS - DNA part of the chain. It’s precisely the interval that scientists don’t really understand anything. On the one hand, we know the main factors that stimulate protein growth. They are:
- AMINO ACIDS
- TESTOSTERONE
- CREATINE
- HYDROGEN IONS
The official scientific doctrine believes that it is testosterone that, penetrating the muscle cell, binds to the receptor to create a COMPLEX, which affects DNA by creating RNA for protein synthesis. Amino acids are the building materials for protein. Creatine is energy for building. Hydrogen ions help the COMPLEX get into the nucleus to DNA. And on the other hand, WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HOMEOSTASIS DISRUPTION (WHAT WORKOUT) IS BETTER IN TERMS OF GROWTH FACTORS!
Indeed, most of the factors (TESTOSTERONE, CREATINE, HYDROGEN IONS) directly depend on the workout. Disrupting homeostasis by working out, we make the system respond to this both by increasing and decreasing (destroying) the NUMBER OF FACTORS. For example, plethora of hydrogen ions destroys, i.e. harm, sarcosomes, and plenty of hydrogen ions help the hormone reach out to nuclear DNA and start protein synthesis.
That raises many questions. For example, SHOULD THE SYSTEM BALANCE BE STRONGLY DESTROYED? The more we destroy system balance on the one hand, the stronger it should respond to protect itself by developing the necessary factors. On the other hand, the more we destroy the system, the harder and longer it is to “repair” it .... Perhaps it makes sense to less destroy the balance (then the “repair” will be faster and there should be more factors, because they will be added up more often)?
Well, here’s the stumbling block that troubles many peoples’ minds, both among musclemen and among scientists. There are two opposing camps with different “religions”: The ACCUMULATION THEORY and the DESTRUCTION THEORY.
DESTRUCTION THEORY suggests that muscles grow well when you destroy them nicely by working out. And the ACCUMULATION THEORY suggests that muscles grow best from less destructive workouts that result in more necessary growth factors being accumulated.
DESTRUCTION THEORY
It says “NO PAIN, NO GAIN”. The more you destroy your muscles with exercises, the more they can grow while resting. It all seems quite logical at the system level: we have some BALANCE upset by the workout. If this is frequently repeated, such violations are not beneficial to the system as energy is wasted for their maintenance. The only way out for the system is to ADAPT to these constant violations through its own strengthening. After all, having become stronger, the system returns to its usual balance, but with respect to existing repeated violations of its environment.
And here it is quite obvious that the more we upset the system balance (the more we destroy it), the more it must grow to regain the lost stability. From the ENERGY BALANCE point of view, it could not have been otherwise. That is why the advocates of the theory are convinced that you should train hard, with pain, failures and load progression. After all, all of the above are direct signs of system damage. Damage to your muscles, after which they should get bigger.
There are lots of advocates of this system both among athletes and among scientists. Mr. X “was” one of the most famous advocates of the system. Why the past tense? Why in quotes? The thing is that Mr. X “backed out of” the theory described in his seminal book. Many have already heard this. It’s just he backed out of it to the extent it concerns actin-myosin bridges rupture caused by mechanical stress during workout. But I did not hear him give up the supercompensation theory that follows homeostasis disruption. This is all irrelevant though. Let’s move on.
ACCUMULATION THEORY
It says, “THE LESS YOU DESTROY MUSCLES, THE BETTER”, “MODERATE INTENSIVE EFFORTS WITHOUT DESTRUCTIONS”. It’s all about the fact that the very factors that influence information reading from nuclear DNAs are created in muscular activity. Therefore, it is important to injure muscle fibers as little as possible, but physically engage them as much as possible to maximize the buildup of these factors.
Professor C is the most famous advocate of the theory in our country. He is against the destruction-supercompensation scheme initially suggested by Mr. X. In general, Professor C explains post-workout soreness by short myofibrils ruptures in poorly trained athletes. The bottom line is that there are short and long myofibrils. When doing stretched exercises (full-range, negatives), short ones rupture and long ones remain. The process will stabilize over time (only long ones remain), and therefore the pain will go away. That’s why Professor C doesn’t believe pain is somewhat useful for growth; on the contrary, he believes it to be a sign of useless muscle destruction.
WHERE DO THE TWO THEORIES CONFRONT?
Why destroy muscles as little as possible by working out, if the factors required for growth are created by the workouts? Here’s the thing: the more sets you do, the more RNA accumulates that triggers muscle protein synthesis, on the one hand. And the more Hydrogen Ions accumulate, on the other hand... According to Professor C, there should be PLENTY, but not PLETHORA of Hydrogen Ions, because the more Hydrogen Ions, the greater cell acidification and destruction
Let me remind you that the energy for muscular activity is re-synthesized with glycolysis reaction producing lactic acid. That’s why when you do multiple repetitions, you end up feeling muscle pain (it’s the acid burning them).
1 glucose + enzymes + ADP = 2 lactic acid + 2 ATP + water
The reaction provides our muscles with energy (ATP) throughout the set (if there had been no reaction, the energy would have ended in the first set). As you can see, along with the ATP, we get LACTIC ACID (burning during the set), which is further split into LACTATE and HYDROGEN ION. Thus, HYDROGEN IONS are formed when using energy:
ATP = ADP + F + Н (+ Hydrogen Ion) + Е (energy)
And the more sets you do, the more lactic acid and thus hydrogen ions accumulate. The first is bad and the second is necessary for growth. THAT IS THE SYSTEM CONTRADICTION! IT IS POSSIBLE TO DESTROY MORE THAN IT WILL BE SYNTHESIZED LATER. This can only be avoided by destroying less and accumulating more (factors such as RNA). To do this, you should increase rest between the sets because the level of lactic acid drops immediately after the set and the longer the time passes, the heavier it drops and less destroys your muscles.
DESTRUCTION THEORY states that muscle fibers are INJURED during workout, which CREATES factors causing muscle growth. The deeper the injury, the more growth factors.
ACCUMULATION THEORY states that factors causing muscle growth accumulate during workout, but muscle injury only hinders this growth.
What does it mean? It means that scientists cannot unanimously say what triggers muscle growth. Some say that training stress should be maximum, others say it should be minimum, etc. We know about the factors and we know that they are affected by exercising. It is uncertain how it happens (by accumulation or destruction)
BALANCE
I’m not a scientist, so I can easily be mistaken. I make value judgements in this regard. I’ve seen the effect of the balance law around me for all my life. The more a person wants to get something, the more effort he or she should make. The more expensive the car you buy, the more money you need to spend on its maintenance. The more money you spend on parties, the harder it will be to make it to the end of the month without money. BALANCE (HOMEOSTASIS) is everywhere, because energy does not simply go anywhere and cannot appear from nowhere.
In this regard, I’m sure that both DEVELOPMENT and ACCUMULATION processes are necessary for muscle growth because our body benefits from the BALANCE. The body and muscles benefit from spending as little energy as possible, so if you upset the BALANCE POINT by working out (DESTROY THE SYSTEM), the system tries to adapt to this destruction. The system tries to eliminate this new external imbalance factor (destruction by working out), by strengthening internal gain. To put it bluntly, the more we’re pressed from the outside, the harder we push back from the inside to keep the balance.
I’m sure that the theory of stress and homeostasis disruption lies at the root of any muscle growth. I see that at all times and in all places. Strong sun (external destruction) causes skin burns, the body produces a protective pigment and the skin is darker (internal exposure in response to keep the balance). A hand covered in blood from a shovel (external destruction) forms powerful calluses (internal exposure to keep the balance), etc.
Our system (body) is always trying to protect itself from any repeated disturbances in its balance, because it is beneficial for energy conservation. That is why, RECOVERY + SUPER RECOVERY (supercompensation) always happen after DESTRUCTION. This is a kind of “just in case allowance”. This allowance is muscle growth, when after rest they become a little more than they used to be.
But that’s not even the point. The point is that NO ACCUMULATION IS FUNDAMENTALLY POSSIBLE WITHOUT SYSTEM BALANCE DESTRUCTION (DISTURBANCE). The body and muscles won’t benefit from it. Only external destructive impact on the system can make it adapt to this by strengthening (muscle growth).
IDEA: DESTRUCTION IS REQUIRED TO TRIGGER ACCUMULATION (GROWTH)
It is difficult for me to prove this from the mathematics or physics point of view, but I see mountains of evidence from my experience. No matter how many anabolism-promoting factors a person receives artificially, he or she will not grow without working out. No matter how much sport supplements and steroids you take, it isn’t going to make any difference without working out.
Moreover, if you train with the same load for years you’ve become accustomed to, your muscles won’t grow either. Load (system destruction) remains unchanged = No growth (no system accumulation).
So I personally think that the accumulation theory is a particular case of the destruction theory, you just need to have a broader view of a destruction. DESTRUCTION means not only the destruction of muscle fibers (it’s too narrow in my opinion). DESTRUCTION means any negative system imbalance. You may not have torn your muscle fibers apart, but you have upset the system’s energy and raw materials balance by working out. What the hell is this if not a destruction?
Provided there’s a deeper destruction of the balance at the next workout, the system may subsequently grow and strengthen. If such destructions are equally strong, the muscles (system) will get used to them and will not show growth. What’s the best way to do that? That’s another question. But it is important to understand that the system won’t strengthen unless its usual balance has been destroyed and its strengthening is energetically favorable.
MUSCLE INJURIES
Perhaps muscle fibers should not be injured by working out. In that case, we should upset system balance in some other way, if we’d like for it to strengthen.
Although myofibrils destruction is also not as simple as it seems. Professor C offers a model for explaining pain involving short myofibrils ruptures. In theory, it looks like this: muscle fibers have different lengths, when creating tension along the entire length of the muscle, heavy load falls on shorter fibers, forcing them to rupture. This results in micro-inflammations, which causes pain signals in our brain (post-workout pain). After several months of regular workout, all short fibers will be simply destroyed and nothing should hurt. This is great, of course. BUT people have been exercising for decades and they still have post-workout muscle pain. How to explain this? Maybe there’s something about myofibrils destruction and creation mechanisms that we don’t understand?
Or how to explain the lack of growth if you exercise your muscle every day without severe destruction? In terms of accumulation theory, this should work well, but it works poorly in reality... Do a light daily workout for a while, then give the muscles a couple of weeks to grow and there should be crazy progress. Unfortunately, that’s not the situation yet.
Take even such a seemingly simple recommendation as increasing the time between sets. In theory, this increases the time to remove muscle acidification products, and therefore reduces their destruction. I absolutely agree with that. Well, it cuts both ways: the longer you rest between sets, the less muscle load in a workout. And this means that you are limiting your ability to impact the system (possible muscle growth). There certainly is a solution to this head scratcher, to workout all day with a 30-minute rest between sets. But then you will not have any time to live and work. There are many questions and doubts, friends.
Not to mention dozens of sports and medical experiments on the dependence of athletes’ results on rest between sets. Many of these experiments lasted for months and most of the findings involved disadvantages of growing muscle strength and weight. Maybe they didn’t take something into account. Maybe there’s something we don’t understand. But there are tons of such experiments, and they call many important muscle growth theories into question.
At first, I wanted to write a very detailed article with a list of various experiments and muscle growth theories. But when I started looking deep into it, I realized it would not be interesting for starters, and, moreover, it would be useless. I just highlighted two basic muscle growth theories and tried to explain what they’re about. It is for you to say whether I managed to do that.
************************
bodytut@gmail.com
