|Ideal sources for Wikipedia's medical content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Hypertrophy.
|WikiProject Medicine / Pathology||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Content of Article
Many(~75) other articles a refering to this article for explanation of Hypertrophy of Organs. I belive this very article should avoid discussing specific hypertrophies. Such as the Muscle, Ventricular and the Resistence training should all get their own articles. Lord Metroid 16:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Splitting makes sense to me - each organ will hypertrophy in its own way. The current article should pretty much be called muscular hypertrophy. WLU 17:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree that the current article should be of any special hypertrophy because many articles make use of "Hypertropy" in their text. User assumes an explanation of what hypertrophy is by clicking on one of the links. The introduction is fine and should be let alone. However the other parts are not. Lord Metroid 07:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Hypertrophy is on a cellular level, and should not be used to refer to gross anatomical inflations. Concerning muscles, it is the increase in # of myofibrils that increases the "size" of muscle fibers. By #, I am NOT talking about increasing #'s of cells (hyperplasia).
Move: There is more than one kind of hypertophy. I got very frustrated when I could not find the article on hypertrophic body of waters. Which refers to the excessive amount of nutrients accumulated in said body of water. Lord Metroid 15:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I took out the line "Though protein is an integral part of attaining muscular hypertrophy, it should not be overdone as it can put the kidneys under increased stress as it has to process more urea." since it was not footnoted. This is a quite spurious comment, since most research on protein and kidney function has been performed on te elderly and those with weakened kidney function. there is evidence that a high protein diet can harm an otherwise healthy kidney. Something else we must not forget, bodybuilding results in not only hypertrophy of the skeletal muscle but also the cardiac muscle which may not be completely benign since they can result in a dramatic change in the cellular phenotype. Thus in chronic cardiac overload a variety of genes-normally expressed only in the neonatal heart-are reactivated & the contractile proteins switch to fetal isoforms which contract more slowly;furthrmore,extremely large muscular mass may provide an excellent conditions for the development of reentry or circus movement in the heart & of course that leads to VF.
I don't know for sure if it's really called hypotrophy, but my questions goes towards the issue that muscles can reduce in size both by longer periods of discontinuing training and by dieting in a wrong way. I'd be great if someone could give reasons for this phenomenon. --Abdull 21:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I took out the part about the possible side-effects of steroids outweighing the benefits because this is highly subjective. First of all, not a single study ever, has been able to prove that using low dosages for short periods of time has any serious (lasting) side-effects for healthy young men. Secondly, people should decide for themselves if they think substantial muscle gains outweigh any possible side-effects.
Deleted: "the potential health risks far outweigh the potential benefits"
From the Nutrition heading:
Creatine is used by the body to convert ADP back into ATP in the first 10-20 seconds of exertion, as is limited by the amount of creatine stored in your muscles. As a set in weight training doesn't usually last more than 10-15 seconds, this energy system is the dominant one, and so taking supplements will increase the amount of creatine available and can greatly increase muscular endurance, meaning one can do more reps and sets, fatiguing more muscle fibres.
A set of 12 reps of a given exercise should take considerably longer than 10-15 seconds; in fact, done properly, a set of 12 reps of any given exercise should take between 48 and 192 seconds (two-to-four seconds up, two-to-four seconds down, very little or no resting between repetitions). This is considerably longer than the time frame quoted for normal anaerobic cellular respiration with creatine levels from normal dietary sources. I think that this should read:
Creatine is used by the body to regenerate ATP from ADP in the first 10-20 seconds of exertion, a window which is limited by the amount of creatine stored within the muscle. As each rep in a set will last between 4 and 16 seconds, a given muscle's stored creatine will deplete between the first and fifth rep. Supplementation with creatine can increase the amount stored in the muscle tissue, allowing the muscle to be worked longer with heavier weights, which can improve results in muscle strength and endurance with heavy weight loads.
Suggestions? (added by Aramis1250)
I re-worked the grammar a bit - whaddya think? Depending on the type of training and experience of the individual the duration of each rep can vary, I think 8-16 seconds is a bit long for most people I see at the gym.
I'd add that after creatine is exhausted, the body begins to switch to glycolysis, resulting in the accumulation of lactic acid. Also, the key reason why CP is important is that it increases the duration during which maximum force output is possible - once you switch to glycolysis, power output or at least potential output is reduced significantly. Might be a bit twitchy. I've also heard of (and done) a type of weight training in which you only train for 10-15 seconds, remaining solely within the CP window, so perhaps that's what they are referring to. Works really well, but you have to do like, 6-10 sets per exercise and it takes a really long time to finish a body part. WLU 17:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)