Thread: What is Muscle Memory?

A question I have that relates to this is:

If you stop lifting of course after a while your muscles will tend to return to their normal size, eventually. What happens at the micro level during this process? Are cells/fibres dying or just shrinking?

After searching for a while, I actually came across something which made sense... would you agree with this statement ?

"The muscle has no memory, only the brain has memory. After learning how to train, the brain works out the optimum way to send electrical messages in order to ensure the most efficient usage of fast and intermediate muscle fibres, and the most efficient way to make a muscle contract. After a lay off, say a year, many people find that they get back into their training quite quickly. This because after a couple of weeks back at the gym the brain remembers the most efficient way to make use of fast and intermediate muscle fibres, and the most efficient way to make a muscle contract. This is why after such a lay off gains can made very quickly."

Yet this doesn't answer Karl's question, which I would also quite like to know ...

There is a story of a man who asked to spare the life of the soliders he could walk past, after he was beheaded. Supposedly after losing his head he was able to successfully walk past either 2 or 3 of his men (I forget).

Anyhow, I have found for myself that I can bounce back some of the way but it still takes a good while to be able to reach where I once was, so I think this term is perhaps overrated and overused. Dont bank on it as a way to get everything back in a couple weeks (unless you were barely training) as some ticket to being lazy. I do believe it is overrated.

If you look at Dennis Newman he gained back all of his mass very quickly after his chemo treatments, where he shrank down to near nothing. But he had anabolic support and he KNEW how to eat. Once again a testament to diet being so important, you can't build it if you dont take in the nutrients to make it.

Originally Posted by KarlW

A question I have that relates to this is:

If you stop lifting of course after a while your muscles will tend to return to their normal size, eventually. What happens at the micro level during this process? Are cells/fibres dying or just shrinking?

As far as I know, the actual number of cells and fibers in your skeletal muscle cannot change, only the size of them. Muscle is almost like a parasite to the body. It requires a lot of additional energy expenditure to maintain. Your body is willing to give up this mass if it doesn't get used on a regular basis to maintain homeostasis. However, some people who have been training an extremely long time are capable of maintaining their muscle mass for quite a while after becoming sedentary.

Those would be some strange people, pretty much everyone that stops training loses it pronto, i.e. Arnold. When I had a 6 week layoff it looked like I didn't even train.

I think it might have something to do with minimal physical activity. My father-in-law had huge arms. He was skinny as a kid, but worked out when he was younger. Once he reached middle age, he stopped working out and grew a huge gut, but he never lost his arm size. He did do some minimal physical activity around his farm, but nothing extreme. I think his diet and the activity helped him retain his muscle, even if he did get a huge gut.

I am always my biggest when I have a gut too

Originally Posted by CowPimp

As far as I know, the actual number of cells and fibers in your skeletal muscle cannot change, only the size of them. Muscle is almost like a parasite to the body. It requires a lot of additional energy expenditure to maintain. Your body is willing to give up this mass if it doesn't get used on a regular basis to maintain homeostasis. However, some people who have been training an extremely long time are capable of maintaining their muscle mass for quite a while after becoming sedentary.

Interesting, cause I'm thinking about cardio also. If you did heaps of cardio wouldn't the body register more of a need to maintain fat stores? rather than if you did minimal to no cardio the body wouln't see such a need and would be more willing to give it up?

Well , I tend to say that muscle memory does exist but to a limited extent. I was 6 months without training. For example , I used to bench 145lbs for my 8 reps before I stopped. Once I stopped , and got back I could do 135lbs for an 8 reps. I know , I couldn't do what I could before but , the 145lbs I achieve was after a few years of training. When I first started training about 4 years ago , I could barely do my 8 reps with 100lbs . When I did stop for the 6 months , I only went down to 135lbs on the bench. It's still a lot better than the 100lbs. That's why I tend to believe that muscle memory is true. On what extend ? I think that is debatable.

Also , note that I did eat a whole lot during that period though. I didn't do much exercise , but I did eat a lot. Maybe that is why I kept a good part of my strenght.

Originally Posted by KarlW

Interesting, cause I'm thinking about cardio also. If you did heaps of cardio wouldn't the body register more of a need to maintain fat stores? rather than if you did minimal to no cardio the body wouln't see such a need and would be more willing to give it up?

No. Your body doesn't store more fat because you do more work. That doesn't make sense. If that were the case, then exercise would make you fatter. Your body will see a need to store fat if you live in a cold climate, eat big meals really far apart, or take in more calories than it can use. There are other reasons, but cardio is not one of them.

Starvation is what signals to the body that fat storage and metabolism downgrade is neccessary.

Originally Posted by CowPimp

No. Your body doesn't store more fat because you do more work. That doesn't make sense. If that were the case, then exercise would make you fatter. Your body will see a need to store fat if you live in a cold climate, eat big meals really far apart, or take in more calories than it can use. There are other reasons, but cardio is not one of them.

ya I know it was pretty dumb I was just trying to get some ideas going. So would it be correct to say that the body sees muscle and fat as opposites in terms of it's needs? ie It wants to get rid of muscle unless you give it a reason to keep it, and it wants to keep fat unless you give it a reason to get rid of it?