how muscles really grow?

[BWhitaker]

Basically i was curious to the basics of how muscles really get bigger. Ive always heard that when we overload the muscles they sorta breakdown and when they heal they are a little bigger provided they have the proper nutrition (sorta like a scar) but im not really satisfied by that. Im more interested in how it really works...ie-the satelite cells satellite cells will fuse with one another or with the adjacent damaged muscle fiber, thereby increasing the number of myonuclei for fiber growth and repair. Proliferation of satellite cells is necessary in order to meet the needs of thousands of muscle cells all potentially requiring additional nuclei. Differentiation is necessary in order for the new nucleus to behave as a nucleus of muscle origin. The number of myonuclei directly determines the capacity of a muscle cell to manufacture proteins, including androgen receptors.

How does this really all work?

[DBarcelo]

First off, you have to realize that everything we "know" about muscles and muscle growth are all theory. Nothing is actually fact and still stands to be proven or disproven.

Every person is born with a predetermined number of fat cells and muscle cells. Fat cells will reproduce if needed, but muscle cells don't tend to increase in number, but only increase in size. The muscle cells will increase in number, but it doesn't normally happen. The working theory is that the contractile tissue in muscle fibers are basically protein and when you stress the muscle fibers, you break the tiny hairs of protein. When the body repairs the tiny strands, they grow thicker and stronger. Only after all of the muscle cells have reached a maximum size and the body still experiences increses in stress, will the body begin to build new cells (under normal conditions).

that's the very basics of it. If you want more detail, I can go deeper into it, but you seem to have a decent idea of how it works. Just remember that it's all theory.

[Pwrlfter]

I don't mean to flame you or anything, I just want to clear up the misconception about theories. Well the way 'theory' is used in everyday language is not what it means in the sciences. In everyday talk a theory is just an opinion. In science you first have an idea, then you do experiments to prove or disprove your idea. From those experiments you make a hypothesis, and with more data and experiments you prove your hypothesis, which then becomes a theory. A theory that has been around for a very long time and has not been disproven is then called a 'law'.

So when you read about a scientific theory, it is fact and has been proven.

[DBarcelo]

I don't mean to flame you or anything, I just want to clear up the misconception about theories. Well the way 'theory' is used in everyday language is not what it means in the sciences. In everyday talk a theory is just an opinion. In science you first have an idea, then you do experiments to prove or disprove your idea. From those experiments you make a hypothesis, and with more data and experiments you prove your hypothesis, which then becomes a theory. A theory that has been around for a very long time and has not been disproven is then called a 'law'.

So when you read about a scientific theory, it is fact and has been proven.

It has to be repeatable in order for it to be a valid theory unless it's a conceptual theory that can't actually be proven or disproven at this time. For example, we wen't throu a very long time where the theory was that the earth was flat. It was a conceptual theory, so nobody could prove or disprove it at the time. The fact that we went hundreds and hundreds of years believing the earth was flat didn't make it true let alone a law. In plain english or in scientific terms, a theory is a theory and the basic idea of a theory is that it still stands to be proven or disproven even though the experiment that validates the theory has to be repeatable. When it comes to cellular theory such as with the muscles, it makes sense and withstands the scrutiny of logic, but still remains to be proven or disproven because they have yet to use an electron microscope to prove that this is really the way that muscle fibers work, break down and rebuild. The closest I remember being done was experiments with frog legs.

So it's not just that something goes for any certain amount of time as being unproven that makes it a law, it's when there is proof beyond doubt that something is true that makes it a law. And what we know about muscles has yet to be proven beyond doubt, so it is all still just theory.

[Pwrlfter]

Well only peasants actually believed the world was flat, there was evidence to the contrary, such as the there was an apparent curvature of the earth known to all sailors. The highest point of an island would appear first then as they approached closer the remained became visible.

I looked up the 'scientific method' to make sure what I had posted off the top of my head was right, and I would like to amend my last statement that, "So when you read about a scientific theory, it is fact and has been proven". Rather it would've been better to state that it has not been disproven, and I didn't state the scientific method as accurately as I would've liked. Here is a very good link describing it,

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/ph...AppendixE.html

But as to you statements about things like the rachet theory of muscle contraction and the physiological effects of training on the cellular level, I was merely responding to your dismissal of very valid research due to your misunderstanding of the scientific method. Here is a quote from the above listed link as a rebuttal to your previous post, it explains what I tried to much more lucidly.

"A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

[fritz2435]

Wow sounds like the stuff I'm learning in World History 2.... Time to get outa this thread!

[DBarcelo]

I just skimmed through what you wrote, but it really looks like you just reworded what I had already written. You seem to have confirmed what I wrote, not contradicted it.

For example, I wrote, "It has to be repeatable in order for it to be a valid theory unless it's a conceptual theory that can't actually be proven or disproven at this time." and you wrote, "A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests." You also wrote, "Rather it would've been better to state that it has not been disproven" and I wrote, "the basic idea of a theory is that it still stands to be proven or disproven even though the experiment that validates the theory has to be repeatable." I could go on, but I won't. The point is you just repeated everything that I wrote.

I'm no history major or anything, but I do know that it wasn't just peasants that believed the world was flat. I only throw this part in just as an FYI. In any case, there were a lot of people that were actually killed for saying that they believed the world was round and not flat. People were also killed for saying they thought the earth revolved around the sun. You can look up 15th century history to confirm that. Kings, queens, clergy, the Catholic church, everyone believed the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth.

(I was merely responding to your dismissal of very valid research due to your misunderstanding of the scientific method). I have no misunderstanding of the scientific method and you pretty much proved that for me. I didn't word it very well either, but everything I wrote it true.

[DBarcelo]

Oh yeah, gravity is a law not a theory. (The Law of Gravity)

[Pwrlfter]

Oh yeah, gravity is a law not a theory. (The Law of Gravity)

We really highjacked this thread, LoL

[DBarcelo]

I know we did. I don't like doing it unless something can be learned from it. And it's sometimes fun.

[Jackman]

will the science nerds please stop hijacking threads

[RP7]

Ya DBarcelo likes to argue, and hes not bad at it (for a doctor!). Mother****er hijackers.