so this guy is the same size....
https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...Wells_70.3_P7865289/

are you worried gaining muscle will slow you down from riding 308w for 2:06 then running a 1:20 half marathon right after?

I started strength training with my teenage son last year and now I'm 25 pounds heavier. I still wear the same size jeans but had to get rid of some of my shirts and sweaters due to them being too tight in the shoulders and chest. I lifted when I was a teenager so this could be an example of muscle memory for me even though I'm age 54 now.

But did you also eat more and/or do endurance sport less?. No one gains 25lb from thin air

Thanks for that article, (Muscle Memory), I found it resonated with my experience and explains what I have seen when I lift weights (regardless of rep count and load) - very quick increase in physical bulk to my previous "set point". I've never tried to bodybuild beyond the rugby/martial arts physique I had previously, and I am sure that getting from 180 to 200 would be as hard for me as the people on ST have repeatedly stated. However, getting from 160 to 180 is really quick and does not just involve getting fat (I guess the ST doubters will just have to take my word for it, I'm not about to post a picture of my six-pack to "prove" I haven't just put on 10 pounds of fat since the summer!). The article you linked offers a far more reasonable explanation - the muscle fibres and cells in my arms, shoulders, back, and chest have never gone away since I built them in my 20s, they've just been shrunk by the endurance training. So any lifting I do reactivates them and they return to their previous dimensions very quickly (in a couple of months).

I don't know if your post was intended to be humorous, but I'll give an honest answer. I am significantly slower than the pro who happens to weigh the same as me (I ride 2:30 then run 1:35 or so in a 70.3), and I find that the extra weight (even just 10 pounds) affects my run negatively in several ways. First, it makes me more injury-prone during training, especially in my ankles. Second, it makes running less pleasant as it just hurts more, both during and after the run. Third, it seems to add several minutes to my times beyond about 10 km. To be honest, the first two are just as important to me as the third reason, and taken all together mean that while I really want to get stronger, I don't want to add weight at the same time.

then as mentioned before, eith no shift in diet or your endurance execise, there should be no long term weight gain, at best water, which can easily flush in 1-2 days. in fact the more weight during off season can be beneficial when you switch to endurance focus. i think a bigger danger is undereating, as I myelf suffered this with a couple stress fractures and hormonal issues.

Yes I know I'm eating more protein now than before so I assume my calories are higher. My workout breakdown per week is 3 bike rides, 2 runs, and 2 weightlifting sessions. I'm not much slower on the bike now that I'm 25 pounds heavier but my runs are definitely slower than before. But on the bright side, I'm stronger in the gym now at 54 than I was in my 30's and 40's. Strength is important for quality of life as we age. I exercise anymore with an eye towards aging and quality of life.

Can definitely lose fat and gain muscle for a net zero weight gain or loss

Myth: You Can't Gain Muscle and Lose Fat at the Same Time

To shed fat, you have to burn more calories than you take in (what's sometimes called a caloric deficit). But when you do that, your body also burns some muscle. As a result, it's common to lose muscle mass as you lose weight.

The way to prevent this is to eat more protein, according to a study from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Their study found that people who did so while on a high-intensity weight-training regimen were able to gain muscle mass while losing fat. "Getting enough protein provides your body with the amino acids it needs so that it doesn't have to break down muscle for them," says study author Stuart Phillips, Ph.D.

If you read the linked article above about Muscle Memory, you'll see what I'm talking about. When I lift and my weight bounces up and my muscles become bulkier, the first couple of months I am most likely not building any "new" muscle, instead it's the pre-existing (from all my training in my teens, 20s and 30s) muscle regaining previous dimensions. Yes, this means a good deal of water, but since all animal cells are mostly water anyway, this isn't particularly surprising. So for me to go from 160 to about 180 happens really fast, but if I were to try to go from 180 to 200 by building LBM I would certainly hit the limiting conditions you are referring to.

No. You manipulated CICO somewhere. Muscle memory has nothing to do with size, rather motor recruitment for specific exercise. So if you used to deadlift 500, you probably get back to close to that number if you start training again. Or better, like in trii, the many former highschool swimmers who start late as adults easily breeze through the swim, even though they maybe double the size of what they were in highschool

That's not how "muscle memory" (stupid term, it's neurological effects rather than the muscle fibres) works.

20lbs of LBM in 3 months is just not realistic. If it was that easy supplement companies, bodybuilding magazines etc. would all go out of business. If you increase your bodyweight by 12-13% in a couple of months a decent amount will be fat, it's just too quick. Look at the research studies, even high responders put on just under 10lbs of LBM in 3 months training 5 strength sessions a week. That's before we consider the potential negative effects of endurance training on muscle protein synthesis.

Honestly, it doesn't bother me if people want to kid themselves. But the abundance of steroid in media and lack of knowledge about how difficult it is to actually build muscle naturally is leading to lots of men having unrealistic body goals.

Did you actually read the article? It seems like you didn’t, based on your response. Here’s what they found:


“We observed that reload led to an increase in cross sectional area of 59%, and fiber size was completely restored to the presuspension levels. Despite this notable growth there was no increase in the number of myonuclei. Thus radial regrowth seems to differ from de novo hypertrophy in that nuclei are only added during the latter. We speculate that the number of myonuclei might reflect the largest size the muscle fibers have had in its previous history”


i.e. the “muscle memory” they are referring to is not the neurological adaptation type, rather the fact that since myonuclei are not actually lost during deloading, when retraining first begins, the muscle fibres quickly regain their prior dimensions, as though they have a “memory” (purely figurative of course, and it’s a shame they reused a phrase that is used to mean something different). This is what I mean when I say I go from 160 to 180 fast, but that after that your point about gaining LBM would become valid.

I realise this challenges your current view but I encourage you to read the paper with an open mind.

If you read the article you will see they are using the term “muscle memory” in a different way, to refer to the fact that cell nuclei in the muscle remain rather than disappear when detraining occurs. (See my previous post in response to James). So yes, when reactivated it actually does have an impact on the size of the fibres, because they regain their prior dimensions. This is why I bulk up initially, especially in shoulders, back, and chest where I previously carried muscle bulk. But you do need to read the article to understand the process.

did you read it? There is no control for caloric intake. To prove what you are saying, the rats would need to have the same amount of food fed to them before training.

Yes I did read it. The investigation was about whether the nuclei are shed during detraining, and that’s what they analysed. It wasn’t an investigation into weight gain, but an investigation into what happens to muscle fibres during detraining and then subsequent retraining. It seems to me you are keen to discuss something different (weight gain). To be clear, when I refer to “bulking up” I’m not just talking about the weight, I’m talking about the fact my shoulders, chest, and back are physically, measurably bulkier - I have t-shirts that fit me just fine in the summer that are super tight across my shoulders and lats now. The article explained to me the science behind my own observations. Don’t get me wrong, I am trying to avoid weight gain and for that I take the CICO point. It’s not something I dispute.

Firstly the study is about myonuclei, not hypertrophy.

In the study they stopped mice using their legs for 14 days. Not surprisingly there was 34% decrease in muscle CSA. They then allowed them to use their legs again and found 14 days later they had regained the muscle mass.

How is that applicable to your situation? Firstly 14 days for mice is equivalent to 500+ days for humans so there is nothing quick about it. Secondly no healthy human is losing 34% muscle CSA.

On the other hand we have plenty of research in actual humans over the timeframe you are suggesting. To the point we even can predict differences between high and low responders.

The body can only produce so much muscle in a certain timeframe naturally. What you are suggesting is way above that.

The applicability is that it explains a scientifically plausible mechanism behind my observed response to lifting. This is an observation you cannot comment on because you haven’t seen it, you are simply applying your assumptions blindly. What I got from the article is that I am not “building new muscle”, rather reactivating pre-existing muscle fibres. My takeaway is that if I don’t want the bulk I have to be very careful with the lifting I do, because if I lift heavy, I bulk up, even without changing my diet or my endurance training. I’m not applying this to anyone else or generalising outwards, I’m sure different people respond in different ways to these stimuli. It provides me with some understanding I can use to gain some strength without the bulk, which was my original question in this thread.

No the study doesn't show any such mechanism. It's not a study in hypertrophy. It simply says if you stop using a muscle it gets smaller, when you start using it again it returns to baseline. Which seems like an obvious thing. The background to this is more extreme than anything comparable to you - complete immobilisation of legs for equivalent to over 500 days, then 500+ days to regain lost muscle.

The fact there is no control group means any kind of suggestions about hypertrophy being quicker/slower isn't even possible.

We have plenty of study's actually focused on muscle hypertrophy in humans that show what is normal for high and low responders. We know there are limits to protein synthesis in humans, and how these can artificially be overcome (steroids, GH etc.)

You can't build muscle without changing your diet or endurance training. It's simple maths and energy conversation. Let's say you are maintaining weight on 3000kcal per day. You now add weight training, increasing your energy expenditure even further. So stay at 3000kcal per day and if anything you might start losing weight. Your body needs additional kcal for protein synthesis. You are not adding 20lbs of anything (fat/muscle) without eating more or reducing energy expenditure.

Honestly we are just going around in circles though. You don't understand the science enough to realise a. The study you show doesn't show what you think it does and b. The research that's most relevant suggests what you are saying is impossible. Saying you don't need to change your diet to put on 20lbs while increasing overall training (and therefore energy expenditure) makes you look silly. But you are right I can't prove you are not putting on 20lbs of LBM in a couple of months.

One last try, then I’m done.

“Hypertrophy” =

1. 
   the enlargement of an organ or tissue from the increase in size of its cells.
   "the hypertrophy of the muscle fibers"
   
   The study found exactly this: the cells shrank and then regained their initial dimensions, which is all I am claiming my muscle cells have done after two months of lifting. No I am not claiming to have built new muscle. Yes I do understand the science. Yes I am educated enough to understand it. (Also educated enough to know how to use an apostrophe correctly, but we’ll let that slide.). No, I do not appreciate your supercilious, condescending tone. No I am not claiming to have put on 20 pounds of LBM in two months. The only thing “silly” here is your misunderstanding of pretty much everything I have written. This thread has taught me several things, one of which is that engaging in conversation with certain people is a waste of my time.
   

for muscles to appear bigger they will need to have glycogen stored in them, perhaps yes training those muscles shuttled glycogen from being stored into fat cells into those muscles. but if cico is the same, there should not be much weight gain, with the exception of water, which would be silly to restrict.

You don't understand that you not lifting for a while is in no way equivalent to a mice that is not allowed to use it's legs. Your "muscle loss" is not anything like what happens to those mice.

Secondly, those mice only returned to baseline i.e. what they naturally were like without any training. It's like me taking a normal person, starving them to the point they lose significant muscle mass. Then they start eating again and go back to how they were before. It would say zero about what happens when a healthy person starts lifting in an attempt to put on mass above what is natural.

Thirdly, the timeframe of the study is absolutely ridiculous for any comparisons. As I've said before if you convert that to equivalent human time it's was over 500 days.

Having read your post, I’m going to choose to trust my own reading of the article ahead of yours.