samtridad wrote:
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.