Talk:Muscle hypertrophy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:03, 19 May 2008

cellular

I'm pretty sure that the satelite cells are like stem cells that mature and then fuse with the already mature muscle cell. I don't have a source off hand for you, but It's probably in one of the pubmed papers cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfarl34 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I think this section is interesting, but it should get a little more layman and a little more general in the info, if you ask me. Rhetth 15:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truth or lies?

The part about need 'alot' of protein isn't true. There is alot of contradictory evidence. Bodybuilding is about eating 'calories'.

We dont need unnecssary body builder images .

This whole article is based on false science? In muscle hypertrophy there is no increase in myocyte numbers as this description is reserved for muscle hyperplasia. An increase in muscle size and number would be a combination of hypertrophy and hyperplasia? I guess it's ok for roid heads doing a little research, but it is not medically sound science. I think this whole page needs revamping. Skeletal muscle hypertrophy gives rise to and increased number of crossbridges, mitochondria, etc but NOT and increased number of myocytes.

Either scrap it or describe it

I am wondering about the necessity of this sentance, the last in the first paragraph on nutrition:

"There is disagreement over the necessity of artificial protein supplements (such as shakes and bars) versus maintaining a less processed diet high in lean meats such as fish or chicken."

So while this is a great point, it is the only piece of info in the sections. I suggest we either remove it or expand on it. Rhetth 14:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and pasted section?

Unfortunately, most of the strength training section of this article is a rewritten version of this web page:

http://muscle.ucsd.edu/musintro/hypertrophy.shtml

Maybe we should scrap it and start over, since it's pretty contextual and hard to read in the first place. Rhetth 15:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, lets create a good article by whatever means necessary. Lord Metroid 12:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations and Original Research

No citations whatsoever and most of the aticle summarizes things without citing the summarizer or who is doing the summarizing which is practically the definition of OR. Quadzilla99 19:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article Medical or Bodybuilder how-to?

There seems to be a confusion in this page. Is it a medical description of the process of muscular hypertrophy or a 'tips for body-building' page?

It seems like someone has, somewhat crudely, inserted advice for bodybuilders sporadically throughout the article.

I would suggest that, although there is certainly value in alluding to body-building in an article on muscle growth, there is a better place for 2nd-person advice (e.g."Also leave about 45-60sec rest between sets.") than here.Tox Rowlang 09:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can We Turn This Into A Real Wikipedia Article?

Not only is this article a "tips for bodybuilding" article but is is not even complete in the topics its supposed to describe. I came to this article looking for the methods(s) to increase muscle mass by the method of "Increase in the number of nuclei within each muscle fiber" and yet there is not single piece of info passed that heading!24.83.178.11 16:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)BeeCier[reply]

What about resting?

There is no information about the importance of resting after training.

That would be in the resistance training article. WLU 21:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture?

Can you explain how the person in the picture has "extensive muscle hypertrophy?" Also, this individual has never competed in any bodybuilding contest, and therefore should not be considered a "bodybuilder". If you want "extensive muscle hypertrophy" then why not put up a picture of an IFBB pro, instead of someone who could easily be mistaken for a swimmer or track athlete. The Gustavo Badell picture floating around would be an excellent choice. Can't wait to see what Wikidudeman has to say about this one.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.98.18.94 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 5 July 2007.

I think it's fine. WLU 23:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's fine. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from his edits, Wikidudeman is obviously trying to push this picture of himself into every article he can. I would recommend taking them down. 24.98.18.94 02:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not me. It's someone named "Adam Abeles" who allowed me to use the image. He released it under GNU Free Documentation License on a message board and I uploaded it and published it on wikipedia. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is a good one because there is no distracting background and the subject is just standing. Also, it shows a natural level of hypertrophy that's not outrageously exaggerated by steroids. It's contractile hypertrophy attainable through weight and strength training, not sarcoplasmic hypertrophy through bodybuilding. WLU 11:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hypertrophy delays

The sentence "It can take as long as two months for actual hypertrophy to begin." on the Protein synthesis section is rather confusing. It does not indicate why hypertrophy does not begin immediately, what the "usual" amount of time until it begins is (if two months is the maximum, what is the average?) or what occurs in the muscles during this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cc juju (talk • contribs) 21:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]