Anabolism - systemic or localised?

[Repacked]

One question which I cannot seem to find an answer to, and it may be that I am not phrasing it correctly is - is anabolism systemic or purely localised?

Let me elaborate...

One of the main premises that proponents of high frequency training espouse is that recovery and hyper-anabolic activity actually peaks within around 48 hours of training a muscle group. Therefore, supercompensation having occurred within this time, the next 5 days actually result in a slight decline in muscle size/strength from peak. To capitalise on this muscles should be trained every 3 days or so.

My question is this:

Do anabolic processes occuring in the body in general (regardless of which muscle group) prevent this supposed catabolism in muscle groups which have not been trained recently?

This is more relevant to low frequency training where you may have more than a week between training specific muscles.

Rather than opinion, if anyone has any scientifically backed discussion it would be great.

 

[wingman]

Its hormone based, so has to be systemic, surely.

 

[Shrek]

I would've thought it would localise to the muscle trained since anabilism occurs when the broken down muscle repairs.

 

[Stiffy]

I woulda thought it was both. The muscle breakdown promotes growth in the specific region worked, but the increase in Testosterone and Growth Hormone etc from training produces a systemic effect.

Like peeps who pin Test can hold and even build muscle without lifting.

Although the majority is localized.

 

[Repacked]

I would've thought it would localise to the muscle trained since anabilism occurs when the broken down muscle repairs.

But the question is not whether anabolism occurs locally, as there is obviously a local effect, but whether anabolic processes have a systemic effect preventing other processes which may be catabolic in nature.

 

[Shrek]

What other process are you referring too?

 

[Repacked]

The processes are beside the point - the effects are what I'm talking about.

 

[Shrek]

What if there is no other processes?

 

[Repacked]

Edit

 

[Shrek]

Then specify the processes your talking about before your resort to expletives.

 

[Repacked]

Then specify the processes your talking about before your resort to expletives.

Lol. I assumed you were taking the piss. The processes don't matter, I'm not a physiologist and neither is anyone else here. What I'm asking is if anyone has any research which can answer the question 'Do anabolic processes occuring in the body in general (regardless of which muscle group) prevent this supposed catabolism in muscle groups which have not been trained recently?'.

Example:

If you stopped training muscle group X fot 2 weeks while continuing to train the rest of your body, would the anabolism occurring elsewhere in your body minimise catabolism in the muscle group not being trained due to a systemic anabolic effect?

 

[Shrek]

I would say no to very little without proof.
Look at the kunce who never train legs. Zero to little growth occurs even though they have huge guns and chest.

 

[Repacked]

I would say no to very little without proof.
Look at the kunce who never train legs. Zero to little growth occurs even though they have huge guns and chest.

And the proof is what I'm seeking. I can't find anything relating to this specifically. Re the kunt who never trains legs - of course you will get no growth without a stimulus. I'm still talking about providing a strong stimulus, just less frequently.

Personally I don't agree with the school of thought that says that a muscle is repaired in 48 hours (natty), unless you are training at a relatively low intensity and volume level.

 

[Darkoz]

What's going on here

 

[Jungnaut]

Where's the 48hr figure come from? Maybe if you're 20 lol. Its more like 4 days for me (on average), at least it feels like it!

Also. If you toss with one hand and one hand only, that forearm will get huuge! No systemic anabolism on the other forearm. That's why you must switch hands every 5 minutes or so, factoring in 30 seconds less for the dominant arm for the love of symmetry.

 

[wingman]

I think you're confusing anabolism with physical muscle growth. Physical growth takes place when muscle needs to adapt to stress placed on it.
Anabolism is a systemic hormonal thing. Ie to be in an anabolic / catabolic state, your body will utilize resources differently to do what it needs to do. This cant occur at body part level.

 

[Stiffy]

But the brah who doesn't train legs will not be having as strong a systemic response as the person who does as Squats produce more Testosterone than any other exercise and the flow of Testosterone is not localized.

The more Testosterone you have, the more muscle you'll hold or gain.

 

[Darkoz]

What you're really trying to say juganaut is that you want to workout the least amount of time possible you lazy bastard.

 

[Stiffy]

What you're really trying to say juganaut is that you want to workout the least amount of time possible you lazy bastard.

But is that such a bad thing Darknutz? Doing too much training is going to over load the joints, nerves and immune system etc eventually.

Like Goldilocks said, "not too much, not too little, but just right!".

 

[Goosey]

The reality is no one knows how a muscle works or adapts, there are only theories, what we do know is that like everything everyone responds differently, and stimulating growth is no different.
I do think that working a group of muscles has a ripple effect (good and bad)on the rest of the body, it has to, the body is a system, as in it works as one.

As with all things you need to go by self evident truth, personally, if i just work the lower extremities, I know, at least my upper bodies condition is at least maintained.