You don't really get more muscle cells but each cell grows bigger and stronger. (There is some debate about where cells that get split during working out regenerate as separate cells, but the effect is minimal at best.) Muscle cells are unusual in that they don't have a single nucleus but many nuclei. And also, when the muscle gets worked, they develop more mitochondria, the little powerhouses that convert chemical energy into energy the cells can use.
If you do higher reps, you build up the mitochondria, which can account for 20 to 30 percent of the increased size. (So this is a reason that when you are trying to increase size and strength and tend toward less reps and more weight, you should ALSO do some high rep sets.)
Regular exercise increases the number of myofibrils in each cell. This increase of numbers can also account for 20 to 30 percent of muscle growth, with this effect coming from higher weights, less reps. This type of exercise also increases volume of the sarcoplasm fluid, the protein filled fluid that is found in each cell, another 20 to 30 percent. Working a muscle also increases the amount of glycogen stored in the muscles and the amount of connective tissue. However, one thing to keep in mind - only the Type IIb fibers can significantly increase in diameter (see below, under the discussion of fiber types).
There is another way muscle fibers (cells) are categorized. Some fibers rely mainly on using oxygen to generate ATP, in other words, using aerobic pathways. These fibers are termed oxidative fibers. Other fibers rely more on anaerobic glycolysis, so these would be termed glycolytic fibers.
With two sets of criteria, there would be a possibility of four types of fibers, slow oxidation fibers, fast oxidative fibers, fast glycolytic fibers, and slow glycolytic fibers. However, this fourth category doesn't exist as it would make no sense to have a slow twitched powered by such an inefficient process.
Type I fibers are slow and Type II fibers are fast. The Type II fibers are further divided into A and B, with the A version the same oxidation as Type I, and IIb the fast glycolytic fibers. (If I was making up these titles, I'd call them SO, FO, and FG. I have the hardest time remembering if Type I is the fast or slow version. What further makes me confused on a quick look is that the slow twitch muscles are involved in long distance running, while fast twitchers are involved in weight lifting, and it would seem running is faster than lifting weights. But these really makes sense if you think about it as endurance needs muscles that can run for a long time and slow twitch ones are most efficient and can keep going and going . . .)
Now each muscle is a combination of all three types, but each motor unit (all the muscle fibers that are tied to one nerve), which makes sense.
And each type of fiber/cell has other characteristics which are tied to their function.
For example the Type I, the slow twitchers, have many capillaries to bring in the oxygen, small diameter to increase surface area (that the oxygen has to diffuse through), large numbers of myoglobin, a compound similar to hemoglobin which can bind and thus store oxygen right there, and mitochondria, the little powerhouses that can make use of the oxygen. Since myoglobin is red like hemoglobin, slow twitchers are red in color. (All those capillaries with their blood also contributes to the red color.) On the other hand, each fiber is not as strong (being thinner) and there isn't much glycogen storage. (By the way, muscles that contain a lot of slow twitch fibers tend to be ones involved in stablizing rather than being the major movers.)
The glycolytic fibers, Type IIb, are the fastest, since they can do this by making use of such an inefficient pathway. These are the fibers used in intense activities like weight lifting, where you can only do this for a short time before you get soreness from lactic acid buildup. These cells are kind of self-contained in that they aren't configured to get oxygen in quickly, large diameter/small surface area, few capillaries, mitochondria, and myoglobin, but do have lots of glycogen storage, their fuel of choice. (And muscles with lots of IIb type fibers tend to be the major movers of the joints.)
The Type IIa fibers are intermediate to the two extremes, although since they rely on the same pathway as the Type I slow twitchers, they are closer in internal structure, with modifications geared toward oxygen transport, storage and use. They are red to pink in color, for instance. (Logic would suggest that Type IIa and IIb would be closer, but again this defies simple appearances as I hope the above long discussion explains why.
Although it appears the ratio of the three types are genetic, so some people are predisposed to run marathons and others to sprinting, exercising in one form or another will shift the characteristics of each type (in other words, aerobic workouts will increase the number of mitochondria and capillaries in all muscles, although the increase would be the most for the type of fibers using these.
Now here is an important facet of the above. Increases in strength come from muscle fibers getting thicker (only rarely if at all getting more fiber/cells), but the ONLY type of fibers where this would help would be the slow glycolic Type IIb fibers. If the oxidation type fibers got thicker this would actually hinder as the oxygen can't get in as fast. In other words, if you work out aerobically, your muscles will get bigger from more capillaries and mitochondria being added, but if you work out anaerobically, you will "bulk" up much more as you get thicker muscle cells.
If I ran things, I'd try to reverse things to encourage people to walk. Close to the building, I'd mark the spots as "Wimp Parking" and those spots furthest away, I'd mark as "Macho Parking" or "Fit Parking".
So if you had an infrared detector, it should be possible, I would think, to actually see this effect, and thus determine how good a workout you got. Now this being highly tech RPI, surely someone knows of an infrared detector we could borrow to see how useful this was. Even night goggles would work.
I counted at one time and if my memory is correct, there were a total of 151 steps from 6th to 8th Street. The original steps on the Approach itself are 7 inches tall. The concrete ones the city built where there used to be a steep street are 6 inches high. The total is 90-1/2 inches tall. (Anyone want to check these numbers?)
Well, consider. There are roughly 3,500 calories in a pound. There are 365 days in a year. So a rule of thumb is simply divide the calories by 10 to get an idea of what the effect would be over the course of a year.
That candy bar might have 260 calories. If you ate one each day, you would weigh 26 pounds more by this time next year. Or 100 calories burned on the treadmill every day would mean you would be 10 pounds less.
Of course, life isn't that simple, as this assumes all other things remain equal. You MIGHT have that snack at 3 in the afternoon and feel less hungry for dinner, so you might eat less. Or you might feel bad about yourself for giving in if you didn't really want to eat that candy, and punish yourself that evening with "therapy" with Ben & Jerry.
And you might get such a good feeling of having done 20 minutes of exercise, you go use the resistance machines and stay another 20 minutes. And pass by the vending machine without a second thought.
And think of this. We have been so successful over the last century in inventing and using labor-saving devices that we as a society have all but taken root in our couch. It always seem a paradox where people drive around to find the closest parking spot to a gym where they go to walk on the treadmill.
One of the driving forces behind this is the economics. Consider. A broom rake is a simple and cheap device to gathering leaves on your lawn. It is quiet. It helps work your rear delts. It always "starts up." Meanwhile, a leaf-blower is noisy, bad for your ears, annoying to your neighbors. You probably get some exercise by having to hold it, but only a little. It is much more expensive, requires fuel, sometimes breaks down, and causes pollution.
So why has the leaf-blower replaced the rake? I think a major reason is that because if is a magnitude more costly than a rake, if they devote the same proportion of the cost for advertising, the more expensive item can be promoted that much more.
One of the most popular drinks for kids is ONLY 5% juice. The cost savings by filling the rest with water allows them to advertise this product as healthy and natural. (And yes, water is healthy and natural.)
I'd love to see a line of fitness appliances with built-in calorie counters. For instance, if you put a strain gauge on the broom rake, you could measure the force being used and translate it into calories burned. (If there was a collar on the handle with a spring to hold it to the handle, as you pull on the collar, the amount the spring was pulled could measure the force being applied.)
A calorie counter on a broom. A calorie counter on a manual can-opener. A counter on the window-handle on an auto instead of power windows.
I even thought we at the Mueller Center should post how many calories you burn by reracking the weights, or even mopping the floor. We'd have people standing in line to use clean, sort of like Tom Sawyer's fence-painting party.
Now on campus, we have buildings which are named after special individuals, but in the last 30 years, everything can't be a hall or a building, no, it has to be a "Center." And everything lately has to be an acronym, "DCC" for the Darrin Communications Center (three syllables where just "Darrin" would be only two), or "VCC" for Voorhees, and the "C&CC" and "CII" and a Sailor went to CCC to C what he could CCC and all that he could CCC was the bottom of the deep blue Sea, Aye, Aye. I'm surprised the Commons isn't referred to as the "C".
So if every building is going to be a center, then we can drop the one "C" since it has to value in differentiating one from the other. So now we would have the VC, DC, C&C, JE, II. And the Commons would have to be the " , the building formerly known as the C".
Now if they had named a building after me (the "John" - oh, I guess they already have!), I'd be pretty upset to have it obscured by the use of its initials. And this is all pretty confusing. Once I was asked to take something to someone in the VCC and mistook it for the DCC. And the CII for the Low Building is really messed up, especially as the Low Building is the tallest on campus.
Luckily we still just refer to the fitness center as the Mueller Center or even just the Mueller. Hopefully it won't become just the "MF".
And go to ANY gym, fitness club, etc., and they have the same weight plate combos. We have a country that can't convert to metric and it seems like every screw has a different type slot, yet someone we've managed to standardize on weight plates. Would it be so terrible if one place had its own combination?
A surprising number of Americans are clinically depressed, and most don't seek treatment. (The condition itself tends to make you feel there is nothing that can help.) The good news is that there are lots of medications available that treat depression. They all have to do with changing brain chemistry. (Which can sound scary until you realize how much more you change brain chemistry with every beer you drink.) All these meds. are available only by prescription, so if you are feeling down, see a professional. There is nothing to be ashamed of.
But there is also a simple remedy, too. According to Dr. Michael Alexandrov (Clinical Director for St. Peter's Addiction Recovery Center), countries that consume a lot of fish in their diet have very low rates of depression. In fact, there is a direct correlation between the amount of fish in the diet and the rate of depression. And one study found that Omega-3 fish oil is as affective as Prozac. He also recommended taking folic acid, both from dark colored leafy vegetables and taking a folic acid supplement.
It can take 6 weeks for these treatments work, so don't expect an overnight change. If you are feeling depressed, see a professional FIRST, and consult with him or her about taking Omega-3 and folic acid supplements. But if you aren't depressed, it isn't a bad idea to take these to keep yourself from BECOMING depressed, as a preventive. (And both have so many other good benefits, too.)
If you have any ideas, suggestions, comments, etc.
as to either what
is or should be on this website,
or the Mueller Center in general,
please let us know.
To contact us:
Phone: 276-2874
Fax: 276-2817
Email: mugrap@rpi.edu
