> With the body it is almost always use it or lose it.
It is wild how intense this effect is. Last year, I broke my ankle. I couldn't use that leg at all. Within two months, almost all of the muscle in that calf was gone. Just eight weeks and while one leg still looked normal and the other was a stick. Even the flesh that was still there was soft and spongy.
When I got an X-ray later, the surgeon said I had the bones of an 80-year-old in that leg. All the bone density, just gone.
It's crazy how rapidly a human body will cannibalize itself if you don't use something. From what I've heard, this is an evolutionary adaptation unique to humans. Most other animals just have the muscles they have regardless of use. But, perhaps because we went through a narrow population window during the Ice Age, we've evolved this ability to harvest our own resources to survive.
Probably great for not starving to death, but a real bummer if you're trying to be fit.
Not to necessarily contradict your experience, but to balance it with a bit of optimism... Weight lifters who stop training often find they do lose muscle faster than they'd like.
BUT, once it's packed on, muscle seems to require a lower minimum volume of training to maintain.
AND, when they start training again, it comes back much faster than it did the first time around.
I'm an avid lifter and last year had to get 2 surgeries on both elbows. This kept me from doing any upper body training for about 8 months, and I just did basic things for my legs that I could do. I.e. no squats, no leg press since I couldn't even carry the weight plates myself. Basically just leg extensions, leg curls and biking on a stationary bike.
I kept most of the leg strength and muscle mass with even just this but my whole upper body basically went back to not looking like I lift at all.
The upside though and what proves your point around muscle memory is as I'm writing this it has been 12 weeks since my second surgery finished. I started going back to the gym after about 6 weeks with the lightest dumbells on the rack, literally starting from 5lb on every exercise.
In just this 6 weeks I basically look like I never stopped lifting and have approximately 85-90% strength back on all of my upper body lifts (for example 6 weeks ago I couldn't even bench press the bar and struggled to do 10 reps with a 5lb db, yesterday I'm back to hitting 225 for 6-8 reps) and I'm sure if it wasn't just due to surgeries and was just a long break I'd probably be back at 100%, that's how powerful muscle memory is.
I've had the same experience with my legs and cycling. I usually cycle pretty regularly from spring to mid autumn. But I rarely do during winter. It's just not enjoyable for me when it's -10°C.
Every year during the winter, my legs basically turn into sticks. This year especially since I broke a bone a few months ago. For the first few weeks of spring my stamina and leg strength is at most a third of what it was the previous year. But once I've regularly cycled again for a handful of weeks, the strength returns incredibly quickly.
I was diagnosed with bilateral cubital tunnel syndrome. It may have been slightly related to lifting in that while lifting didn't cause it, it may have made it more apparent. My surgeon told me that based on what she saw it may just have been to me being unfortunate in how my elbows were constructed.
At first I had to stop lifting altogether and rest hoping it would go away because it was getting really bad to the point I could not work (type) for more than 5 minutes at a time without my hands/forearms going numb and holding anything in my hands. It got so bad that even just lifting up a cup to drink from or using utensils for more than a minute or so caused a lot of pain.
After 3 months of physical therapy and limiting usage of my arms altogether it hadn't gotten any better so I was told the only remedy was surgery. It started with one of my hands/forearms suddenly starting to go numb one day while working, and about a week later started in the other hand. I was told its fairly rare to occur in both sides except in cases of it being a genetic issue so I think I was just unlucky.
So I had surgery on one side and then waited until that side mostly recovered in terms of pain and had the other side done.
Technically my hands do still sometimes get a bit of numbness/tingling but I was told by my surgeon and from research that its fairly common for people who get surgery for this to still have occasional mild numbness for even years, or basically forever after surgery since nerves heal super slow. But it is so much more bearable than it was to prior.
My understanding is that *strength* comes back quicker. This enables mass to come back quicker, but the causation is reversed. A lot of strength is neuromuscular control over muscle, not muscle mass itself. So it doesn't take as long for the relevant brain neurons to remember how to more efficiently recruit the muscle mass that's there.
This is a similar effect to how one sees all the time a leaner, wiry person be stronger than a more muscular, pumped person.
Strength isn't just the muscles themselves though; it's also tendons, ligaments, bone density. These take time to gain and lose, and generally (as I understand it) respond slower than the muscles themselves.
Yes, all of those have slower responses. It's part of why people who rely on things like anabolic steroids tend to have a lot of connective tissue injuries: they're getting stronger at an artificial rate and exceeds the ability for the connective tissue to keep up.
Especially with something like Trenblone. The muscles blow up, yes, but the psychological feeling of energy and power is (literally) insane and leads to cocaine-addict-like overconfidence. It's common on the forums for novice tren users to damage their tendons because they feel like they can throw up 50 more pounds than their weakest parts can really handle.
Oh, that sounds right. I have quite lean arms and I had a few experiences when people (including me) were surprised that I was stronger than someone more muscular.
The downside is that it's much easier for me to overstrain my muscles. My muscles can really hurt without much effort if I lift weights and I'm not focused on preventing that.
I used to go to the gym regularly. I definitely remember how hard it was to do pull ups and dips when completely untrained. I had to start with negatives. It seemed impossible at first. Now I haven't been to the gym for almost a year but still occasionally do some bodyweight exercises. I can still knock out 10 pull ups, 40 press ups, dips etc. all from a dead stop. It's amazing really. I have less muscle than a lot of people now, but I seem so much stronger still.
I'm 43. I started this last year. My life has changed so positively too, in similar ways. People treat me better (I was previously 5'9" and 200lb, now I'm 180 - it doesn't take a lot!), my back also feels better, I sleep better, I'm more able to focus, and like you say, mood too.
Just as a counterpoint (which you generally don't hear when people talk about any kind of exercise):
I'm 43 too. I started getting back into it about a year ago and ended up feeling a lot worse physically (and correspondingly psychologically) because of it. I have pain in my arm/shoulder now that isn't getting any better and which "physiotherapy" did almost nothing to improve, and hip pain/discomfort that's gotten worse in the process, plus there's the obvious wasted time, effort, and money.
I'm glad you're having positive effects from it, but it's far from a universal truth that weight training leads to positive outcomes. Not that I think that's what you're claiming, but that seems to be the narrative online.
I do think it's basically universal that weight training when done correctly leads to positive outcomes. What I'm seeing you talk about is trying to teach yourself. I don't think that's safe or effective.
I find machines hyperfocus the training on specific muscles, but take away most need for stabilization. They can also cause RSI-like effects by constraining you to one and only one movement path.
With barbells (or dumbells, or kettlebells, etc.) you have to not only lift the weight but also balance/stabilize it, that recruits and strenthens a lot more small muscles along with the major muscle area you're training.
Machines and dumbbells initially when I injured my arm (it was a repetitive use thing and not a trauma), and then after a long break and trying to let it heal, I switched to barbell for most things, along with a pressing machine (because I don't have somebody to spot me for bench press) and a pulldown machine.
I don't know. That's the problem: all the stuff I watch and read is so vague and even contradictory ("push yourself, but don't push yourself too much!"), and so one-size-fits-all that I have no idea where to even begin at this point. It's like learning some skill that takes years, except if you get it wrong you ruin your body and are left in pain.
IME, when I take long breaks from lifting, keeping my protein intake high means I lose muscle much more slowly. One gram of protein per pound of body weight daily has been a major game changer in losing weight and gaining muscle. Gray beard BTW.
You could consider increasing protein consumption a bit. Other research indicates something like 1.1 g/kg is better. Of course quality matters too: people who are getting most of their protein from lower quality plant sources may need more in order to get enough of certain essential amino acids.
Agreed, I'm consistently inconsistent. I'll lift for a while, then mess around and not lift for a while.
Each and every time I've gone back to consistent barbell lifting it would only take me a few months to get back to higher numbers I've run into in the past. This is part of the reason why I love weightlifting so much.
I used to be an avid runner, and not running after a long while has made it much more difficult. Lifting is always easy to get back into (at least for me).
I've been weightlifting quite a bit, nothing extreme but all the usual full body stuff plus targeted ones. I've broken my legs several times in past few years, always something unique.
Last one was nasty - bad paragliding fall right on tarmac with my heels taking brunt of the hit (better them than spine). Both legs broken, 1 month wheelchair (before wheelchair came I was literally crawling between spots at home, interesting experience for sure), 2 months crutches since one leg took most of the hit and calcaneus was to pieces (yet somehow magically they stayed together so no surgery & metals required).
Needless to say, after those 3 months, leg was concrete level of stiff with 0 stability working and yes all muscles gone, quads most visibly. especially jarring when next to it was a leg which still was 1 month fully out of order, and just used in 2 months, they look like from different people next to each other. That leg was the stronger and slightly but visibly bigger one before.
What I want to say - losing muscles is a trivial issue, an afterthought compared to losing all flexibility and strength in tendons and ligaments, especially if you used to do tons of sports. Our joints are always the weak spot, going away much sooner than some muscles and bones, taking much longer to build safely (you really don't want to sprain or tear one). Training that takes much longer, and rebuilding muscles can only follow what connective tissues allow. I've spent countless hours in hands of physiotherapists since they come each time with novel ways and equipment use to challenge these tissues, also part of it was in the pool, really cool idea. yet still after 3 months of therapy there are still big differences in everything, at least I can walk cca ok and did a small easy skitour last weekend.
Comparatively, I can easily re-build all muscles I need with just some basic home free weight equipment, you just need few good exercises done in good form, with mild variations.
Muscle mass is lost quickly during detraining, but the additional myonuclei gained when someone puts on muscle are retained for much longer, potentially years. Myonuclei govern protein synthesis, so when training resumes, muscle returns more quickly.
Yes, my hope is that I'll be able to regain the muscle faster than it took to build the first time.
> So, there are no excuses to not get a pump :)
Well... in my case I'm recovering from a third surgery on the ankle and my focus is on regaining range of motion. Strength exercises increase swelling which negatively impacts range of motion, so I have to wait until I've got the flexibility I need and I'm out of the window of scar formation before I can really focus on getting the meat back.
It really is wild. I don't know how your recovery is going, but for anyone worried about this kind of thibg, I will say, that the body does seem to have some kind of memory for prior use snd development generally. For those of us who have worked out moderately to intensely only to suffer an injury or life getting in the way of maintaining consistent practice at the same level, you will find that when you return to working out, you tend to return to fairly close to your prior peak in far less time than it took to get there. Similar to how muscle memory can lead to very quick progression back to your prior level of skill in something that you haven't done in years.
You won't be back to your prior peak, but you'll close 70-90% of the gap shockingly quick.
EDIT: One thing to look out for in situations like GP though, in which development becomes lopsided, is your body will develop lopsided compensation for the disaprity. A lot of physiotherapy often involves learning to force your body to not engage in these compensatory measures so that the diminished or injured part of your body can rebuild its strength and stability correctly.
Due to a gnarly accident, my right arm was in a cast for six months. They had to change the cast several times due to shrinking soft tissue, and by the time the cast came off, from wrist to elbow was all the same width. It was awful. But, like you said, it came back to the 80% level very quickly. At first I was genuinely worried that I'd never recover, but at three months I was already two-thirds of the way to normal, and was at 95% by a year.
I've read somewhere that the peviously trained cells, while after injury and long rest period smaller and fewer are still built with a large number of mitochondria (that was needed for the previous performance levels). This seems to be one of the muscle memory mechanisms.
For muscles, at least, which are not single cells but actually syncytia with multiple nucleuses, weight-bearing exercise produces an increase in the number of nucleuses and thus a relatively permanent increase in the ability of the syncytia to synthesize protein.
So retraining tends to be about double or even triple the speed of the original adaptation. This is one additional reason you should be extremely skeptical about "before and after" photos
Slowly. Lots of complications. I'm eight months away from the accident and a month past the third and hopefully last surgery. Right now I'm focused on getting range of motion back before new scar tissue forms, then I'll switch to building strength back.
I'll probably always have some stiffness in that joint but with luck I'll be back to all of my usual activities later this year.
“Each astronaut aboard the space station engages the muscles, bones, and other connective tissues that comprise their musculoskeletal systems using Earth-like exercise regimens. Crews exercise for an average of two hours a day.”
This sort-of indicates that once someone goes, say, to the Moon, and stays there for five years or so, they might not be able to come back on Earth at all, or need extremely long adaptation. The difference between 0.16G and 1G would be massive.
Any deployment of people to the Moon will have to take this into account.
And kids born and grown in lunar gravity may not be able to come to Earth under any circumstances.
It should be noted that it's not even sure that people could survive with such low gravity for a truly long time, or at least thrive. It could be that various parts of the body get weakened to a point that is even dangerous in the low gravity conditions (for example, you might find that you get a bone fissure in your leg every time you bump into the bed corner).
Also, it's not at all clear that people could procreate and (especially) have a normal pregnancy in very low g conditions. We have nowhere near the kind of understanding of the gestational process that could allow us to know for sure before trying it out.
I guess the corollary here is that if it turns out some people could survive and procreate living in low-g, and some of their children could do the same, then the problem will sort itself out in couple generations :).
Kind of. The problem thete is that most of the cost of your space program becomes:
- palliative care for astronauts you spent millions of dollars training and billions of dollars sending to space.
- childcare for their kids before they're useful.
People going back to 52C (125F) after a few years cant deal with it either. I don't know if the same goes for -30C (-86F) but I imagine it wouldn't feel usual.
I would be sceptical about such a unique evolutionary adaptation occurring in such a short time period. _The_ ice age (the last one) was just yesterday in evolutionary terms.
Punctuated equilibrium [1] is one of the predominant theories of evolution so it’s not at all far fetched. In that theory population bottlenecks are one of the main mechanisms of cladogenesis.
Adaptation need not only mean genetic (slow), it could just as well be epigenetic. The latter is not well-understood enough to be taught in school textbooks yet, but has been of great interest in recent decades.
Both the phenotype and the genotype of a species/population can, and do change overnight. Think about nazis killing people with big noses. The average nose size for humans shrank, and the responsible genes disappeared.
Evolution (as the change of the characteristics of a species) working in million years is stupid. It doesn't even need one generation.
Sorry to hear about your leg! When they said “80 year old bones” is that just due to the reduced usage from the broken ankle? Or something more?
I feel like my bone density must’ve decreased over the years from arthritis (diagnosed at ~ 25) - less usage of the legs, less bone density. But getting back into it now, and have found a happy middle ground where I can still be pretty active and not in the pain. Cycling is the way to go, and many shorter walks more often
> When they said “80 year old bones” is that just due to the reduced usage from the broken ankle?
Yes, just lowered bone density from not using it. Bone density increases in response to stress placed on the bone, especially impact stress. No stress on the bone and it basically hollows out.
> Cycling is the way to go
Yeah, I started biking to work a few years ago for my health.
That's how I broke my ankle. :-/ Slipped in a puddle and landed really wrong. Trimalleolar fracture with dislocation and severe fracture blisters.
Does anyone have more information regarding whether this effect is only observed in humans? I've always assumed that this is just how most animal bodies work, for the obvious energy and resource conservation reasons.
It is wild how intense this effect is. Last year, I broke my ankle. I couldn't use that leg at all. Within two months, almost all of the muscle in that calf was gone. Just eight weeks and while one leg still looked normal and the other was a stick. Even the flesh that was still there was soft and spongy.
When I got an X-ray later, the surgeon said I had the bones of an 80-year-old in that leg. All the bone density, just gone.
It's crazy how rapidly a human body will cannibalize itself if you don't use something. From what I've heard, this is an evolutionary adaptation unique to humans. Most other animals just have the muscles they have regardless of use. But, perhaps because we went through a narrow population window during the Ice Age, we've evolved this ability to harvest our own resources to survive.
Probably great for not starving to death, but a real bummer if you're trying to be fit.