Journal of Applied Physiology Fuel your research with LabChart
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Appl Physiol 57: 1399-1403, 1984;
8750-7587/84 $5.00
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by MacDougall, J. D.
Right arrow Articles by Sutton, J. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by MacDougall, J. D.
Right arrow Articles by Sutton, J. R.

Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol 57, Issue 5 1399-1403, Copyright © 1984 by American Physiological Society

ARTICLES

Muscle fiber number in biceps brachii in bodybuilders and control subjects

J. D. MacDougall, D. G. Sale, S. E. Alway and J. R. Sutton

Muscle fiber numbers were estimated in vivo in biceps brachii in 5 elite male bodybuilders, 7 intermediate caliber bodybuilders, and 13 age-matched controls. Mean fiber area and collagen volume density were calculated from needle biopsies and muscle cross-sectional area by computerized tomographic scanning. Contralateral measurements in a subsample of seven subjects indicated the method for estimation of fiber numbers to have adequate reliability. There was a wide interindividual range for fiber numbers in biceps (172,085-418,884), but despite large differences in muscle size both bodybuilder groups possessed the same number of muscle fibers as the group of untrained controls. Although there was a high correlation between average cross-sectional fiber area and total muscle cross-sectional area within each group, many of the subjects with the largest muscles also tended to have a large number of fibers. Since there were equally well-trained subjects with fewer than normal fiber numbers, we interpret this finding to be due to genetic endowment rather than to training-induced hyperplasia. The proportion of muscle comprised of connective and other noncontractile tissue was the same for all subjects (approximately 13%), thus indicating greater absolute amounts of connective tissue in the trained subjects. We conclude that in humans, heavy resistance training directed toward achieving maximum size in skeletal muscle does not result in an increase in fiber numbers.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Physiol.Home page
G. D'Antona, F. Lanfranconi, M. A. Pellegrino, L. Brocca, R. Adami, R. Rossi, G. Moro, D. Miotti, M. Canepari, and R. Bottinelli
Skeletal muscle hypertrophy and structure and function of skeletal muscle fibres in male body builders
J. Physiol., February 1, 2006; 570(3): 611 - 627.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Appl. Physiol.Home page
C. S. Klein, C. L. Rice, and G. D. Marsh
Normalized force, activation, and coactivation in the arm muscles of young and old men
J Appl Physiol, September 1, 2001; 91(3): 1341 - 1349.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J Sports MedHome page
K. Klinge, S. P. Magnusson, E. B. Simonsen, P. Aagaard, K. Klausen, and M. Kjaer
The Effect of Strength and Flexibility Training on Skeletal Muscle Electromyographic Activity, Stiffness, and Viscoelastic Stress Relaxation Response
Am. J. Sports Med., September 1, 1997; 25(5): 710 - 716.
[Abstract] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online