Triggers For Mitichondria Division

[Cottonshirt]

I have read in a number of books on athletics training (running, specifically) that running at particular speeds confers specific physiological or metabolic benefits. "run at this speed and you get benefit a, b, and c, and run at this speed and you get benefits p, q, and t," sort of thing.

the books quote no scientific proof for this idea. the particular benefit of interest to me is mitochondria division, specifically, the development of greater numbers of or density of mitochondria in skeletal muscle fibers.

I have read some online sources, such as Scitable  and British Society for Cell Biology which say that mitochondria divide in response to greater energy demands. however, they're not specific about the level of energy demand required to trigger mitochondria division and they do not go into any detail concerning energy limits, thresholds, duration of demand or anything else.

there are really two issues of interest to me.

1. the initial level of energy demand that will trigger mitochondria division, and any limiting factors such as speed of contraction, duration of demand, repeated demand, and upper and lower thresholds if any. in short, how much demand do I have to apply, how long for and how often, to get the greatest benefit?

2. assuming that a mitochondria is unable to differentiate the stimulus for the demand, it doesn't know whether I am running, swimming, lifting weights or having sex, it is simply responding to a demand, is there any evidence that activities other than running confer greater benefits (more mitochondria produced)?

and, to be clear, I'm not expecting any reader of this forum to answer these specific questions, unless you really want to. what I am really looking for are references to any scientific papers dealing with this topic, recommended textbooks or other literature of relevance. a general link to a website with four million science papers on it is not particularly useful, but the name(s) of the most appropriate search term(s) to use would be very helpful. thank you.

 

 

[Super Polymath]

I have read in a number of books on athletics training (running, specifically) that running at particular speeds confers specific physiological or metabolic benefits. "run at this speed and you get benefit a, b, and c, and run at this speed and you get benefits p, q, and t," sort of thing.

 

the books quote no scientific proof for this idea. the particular benefit of interest to me is mitochondria division, specifically, the development of greater numbers of or density of mitochondria in skeletal muscle fibers.

 

I have read some online sources, such as Scitable and British Society for Cell Biology which say that mitochondria divide in response to greater energy demands. however, they're not specific about the level of energy demand required to trigger mitochondria division and they do not go into any detail concerning energy limits, thresholds, duration of demand or anything else.

 

there are really two issues of interest to me.

 

1. the initial level of energy demand that will trigger mitochondria division, and any limiting factors such as speed of contraction, duration of demand, repeated demand, and upper and lower thresholds if any. in short, how much demand do I have to apply, how long for and how often, to get the greatest benefit?

 

2. assuming that a mitochondria is unable to differentiate the stimulus for the demand, it doesn't know whether I am running, swimming, lifting weights or having sex, it is simply responding to a demand, is there any evidence that activities other than running confer greater benefits (more mitochondria produced)?

 

and, to be clear, I'm not expecting any reader of this forum to answer these specific questions, unless you really want to. what I am really looking for are references to any scientific papers dealing with this topic, recommended textbooks or other literature of relevance. a general link to a website with four million science papers on it is not particularly useful, but the name(s) of the most appropriate search term(s) to use would be very helpful. thank you.

Interesting what I learn here.

 

Okay. I have to summarize this huge PDF file I read to find out about the whole process of augmenting human staying power.

 

When we train for intensity and endurance for the highest-paced drills with the shortest breaks, like going from sprinting to clean and jerk (most intense exercise out there) to burnout pushups & pullups to swimming to agility drills our CNS gets shocked (increasing quick twitch muscle fibers for short explosive bursts) and we also undergo ventricular hypertrophy (increases in red blood cells that fuel the mitochondrial fat+carb->ATP conversion process) because we're doing so many high cardio-threshold routines that add up to endurance training. It's gotta be triathlon, wrestling, or mma as opposed to powerlifting or sprinting or marathons. It's dynamic, you get quick twitch and slow twitch muscle fibers in there mixed together for a hybrid athlete (cross-fit). These people generally have more defined muscles, even the females than powerlifters and sprinters, not quite as defined as bodybuilders but more human looking.

 

I also learned that consuming zero calories in every-other-day 12 hour cycles can increase mitochondrial density as well because of the increase hemoglobin pressure in the muscles and the mass release of stored lipids give a nice environment for the mitochondria to build ATP with.

Edited April 27, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Cottonshirt]

like going from sprinting to clean and jerk (most intense exercise out there)

 

this would require you to have an idiosyncratic definition of ``intense'' that is not a normal part of the exercise physiology vocabulary.

 

the clean and jerk is a competition lift, whereas in exercise scenarios it is more normal for runners to perform either the power clean, or the hang clean. those few runners who do regular weight training would be extremely unlikely to do the clean and jerk.

 

you are, of course, perfectly entitled to your opinion, but I find it amusing that you think this exercise more intense than any of the various forms of HIIT, say, Tabata exercises, for example. a more comprehensive plain language version for gym rats.

 

 

we also undergo ventricular hypertrophy (increases in red blood cells...

ventricular hypertrophy is the enlargement of the left ventricle of the heart, usually as a consequence of exercise but it can also occur in persons with high blood pressure. it has nothing to do with increases in red blood cells and even less to do with the topic of this thread.

 

also learned that consuming zero calories in every-other-day 12 hour cycles can increase mitochondrial density...

 

you could not have learned any of those things from the paper you link to. it was a 24-hour cycle, not a 12-hour cycle, and its only comment on mitochondria was to agree, in passing, that they produce antioxidants. the researchers didn't even carry out muscle biopsy and would therefore have no idea whether mitochondrial density had changed as a result of their experiment.

 

[Super Polymath]

I mean cardiac hypertrophy (more general than specific ventricular hypertrophy), athlete's heart, Not the harmful one. Or it could be, it's beside the point. Cardio training strengthens the heart, through muscle hypertrophy, which increases the oxygen capacity of one's hemoglobin. Regarding referring to a single exercise as intense as opposed to a routine, what of it? Regarding how sprinters don't press the barbell over their head but just do a hang-clean, I was just giving examples of high-cardio threshold lifts and exercises. If you do 5 clean and jerks in a row, it's pretty intensive cardio-wise. Break that into three sets, and it's hellish.

 

Basically, collegiate/Olympic wrestlers will have more mitochondria than any other athlete. Not just because of intensity, 3 minutes on the mat is the most endurance you can expect at the amount of power (clean and jerk, quick twitch) a wrestler needs to continually produce in order to out power, out maneuver & gain leverage over their opponents body with no ability to punch, elbow, knee, or clutch hands in locks and chokeholds, but also because they're always cutting weight, which is fasting, which increases ketogens, which increases mitochondria. Since collegiate & Olympic wrestlers also have the most intense cardio regimes for training, the aerobic endurance adds to the weight cutting in kicking mitochondria into high gear. An Olympic wrestler's training and diet look like the ideal combination for increasing mitochondria. I think this is a fair assertion.

 

My interest in this topic stems from the plethora of benefits of having a high mitochondrial volume, in increasing longevity, promoting lean mass as well as raising the wall you hit when you exercise or play sports. Feel great, look great, be great. So I wanted to learn how to increase mitochondrial volume as well. You can just be sitting there, if you've already developed a high mitochondrial volume you're burning more calories automatically and even if you slack off for a while you'll still, at least, be able to outlast others physically.

Edited April 29, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Cottonshirt]

...strengthens the heart, through muscle hypertrophy, which increases the oxygen capacity of one's hemoglobin.

 

that would be very interesting, if it were true. increasing cardiac stroke and volume would increase the volume of blood passing through capillaries in the lungs, and that would increase the volume of oxygen carried by the blood. that much is true. but the "capacity of hemoglobin" is, as far as I know, fixed. one hemoglobin carries four oxygen. the end.

 

my understanding is that the easiest way to increase the level of hemoglobin in your blood is through diet, not exercise. the very reason female athletes particularly are encouraged to eat iron-rich foods is to increase their hemoglobin level. but, as you've already said, it's beside the point because this has precisely nothing to do with the topic of this thread so I'm afraid I don't understand why you keep coming back to this non-point.

 

 

Basically, collegiate/Olympic wrestlers will have more mitochondria than any other athlete.

 

an unsubstantiated claim that seems unlikely to be true. the only study I've seen that compared skeletal muscle mitochondria density in athletes from different sports was on speed skaters versus cyclists, and that was only because they had them doing the same treadmill test and needed a base line to work from. if you have any evidence for this that would be interesting.

 

 

...which increases ketogens, which increases mitochondria.

 

increasing ketogens does not increase mitochondria density, in skeletal muscle or anywhere else. once again, these researchers did not carry out muscle biopsy, were not interested in mitochondria density, but extracted mitochondria from the hippocampus in rat brains and measured levels of two redox indicators in the matrix. they determined that a ketogenic diet might alleviate some symptoms of intractible epilepsy. valuable and useful work, but nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

 

 

...collegiate & Olympic wrestlers also have the most intense cardio regimes for training, the aerobic endurance adds to the weight cutting in kicking mitochondria into high gear.

 

this links to the same irrelevant paper you linked to in your first post. it is still irrelevant, and it doesn't substantiate the point you are trying to make.

 

 

 I think this is a fair assertion.

 

I think it is an unsubstantiated assumption that seems unlikely to be true.

 

 

...from the plethora of benefits of having a high mitochondrial volume, in increasing longevity,

 

if you are claiming that a high mitochondrial density increases longevity, that would be interesting, if you have any, like, evidence to support your claim.

 

 

...as well as raising the wall you hit when you exercise or play sports.

 

I would have thought that the point of training was to demolish the wall, not raise it up. runners, particularly marathon runners for some reason, talk about "hitting the wall" at around 20 miles, and the object of their training is to demolish that pesky wall.

 

 

...if you've already developed a high mitochondrial volume you're burning more calories automatically...

 

this is at least relevant, but the question remains, which is the cause and which the effect? do you have more mitochondria because you burn more calories, or can you burn more calories because you have more mitochondria?

 

[Super Polymath]

Wait a second the page I linked twice was never touched on by you. Why is it crap?

 

It literally states hemoglobin volume (cardiac hypertrophy from aerobic exercises) increases mitochondria.

 

I referred to hemoglobin as a whole when I said that cardiac hypertrophy increases oxygen capacity. All your blood has more oxygen capacity, if you have more blood.

 

I don't doubt spinach or iron consumption is good for cardiac hypertrophy, but eating protein alone won't make you swole.

 

Honestly fitness has more to do with work than nutrition in general. I can demonstrate that by not going to the gym and eating.

 

this article states ketogens increase mitochondria

 

As far as wrestlers having higher mitochondria. That's not from muscle biopsies, its a to b logic.

 

Increased hemoglobin volume increases muscle mitochondria, ketogens increase increase mitochondria. Intense cardio increases hemoglobin volume, cutting weight through intermittent fasting increases ketogens. Wrestlers have the most grueling cardio sessions and cut weight more often than MMA fighters throughout a season (by fasting).

A + B = my conclusion. It's likely.

 

Its not the mitochondria that increases longevity so much as the steps you take to increase mitochondria. You'll have a robust heart, and a high level of weight resistance keeps us in survival mode like our Paleolithic ancestors, which delays scenesence. Not only did I read this, but it makes biological sense that if one male is actively hunting for over 40 years cause, unlike Paleolithic man, he hasn't been eaten yet, his body will need to stay young in order to survive. The article I read said that you can't eat junk food after you turn 30 something, because you'd need to fake the paleo environment by simulating their nutritional consumption so your body can recognize its need to delay flipping the senescence switch at the default of age 40.

 

And guess what? Every paleo man had a ketogenic diet, they weren't in control of how frequently the hunt brought home the mammoth steak.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/b.marfeel.com/thepaleodiet.com/anti-aging-benefits-of-the-paleo-diet/%3Fmarfeeltn%3Damp

 

https://www.nutritionexpress.com/article+index/diet+weight+loss/protein+for+weight+loss/showarticle.aspx?id=2247

 

Humans have limits, there's no removing of the wall, only increasing the exhaustion threshold to push past plateaus. When we can do pushups, the amount we can do in a row varies depending on pain tolerance, control of stress (how we react to fight or flight), patience (how long we hold position before going down for another rep), point is we can always squeeze out another rep but, overall, reps dependupon effort. Increase blood volume, & decrease effort. We do this through repetition. Improvements are gradual, we don't have any limits, just plateaus.

Edited April 29, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Cottonshirt]

Wait a second the page I linked twice was never touched on by you. Why is it crap? It literally states hemoglobin volume (cardiac hypertrophy from aerobic exercises) increases mitochondria.

 

there are three types of muscle in the human body, cardiac muscle in the heart, smooth muscle in the respiratory and digestive systems, and skeletal muscles. the skeletal muscles are the ones that deal with balance, posture and movement and they are the muscles I am interested in. in this thread, whatever happens to cardiac muscle is not germane. the paper you linked to, twice, and which you seem to be upset that I ignored, is about cardiac muscle, and is therefore not relevant to the topic of this thread. that's the first reason.

 

in part 2. of the paper, models of hypertrophy, they said, "Isometric exercise (e.g. weightlifting) leads to physiological hypertrophy," whereas no person cognisant with exercise physiology would consider weightlifting to be an isometric exercise. then they say, "In contrast, endurance training (e.g. running, swimming, and cycling) is characterized by isotonic exercise," and, again, it is impossible to envisage any of those activities being isotonic in nature. these folks have probably forgotten more about rat brains than I would ever want to know but I would take anything they say about exercise physiology with a huge pinch of salt. that's the second reason.

and, third reason, it doesn't say what you said it says. the study is investigating the idea that, "a distinct signature found in mitochondria could potentially predict the nature of the hypertrophic response," and the signature they are expecting to see is metabolic in nature. they are looking at changes in enzyme activity, changes in gene expression, changes in oxidation rates or capacity, changes in ratio of phosphocreatine to ATP, changes to the structure or function of mitochondria, not their number or density.

 

the bit that you misquoted says, "Exercise-induced cardiac hypertrophy is associated with increased mitochondrial biogenesis," which means, mitochondria get busy doing more of what mitochondria do, it doesn't mean that there are more mitochondria.

 

 

I referred to hemoglobin as a whole when I said that cardiac hypertrophy increases oxygen capacity. All your blood has more oxygen capacity, if you have more blood.

 

I don't have some magical capacity to determine what you mean, all I can do is read what you say. language works like that. words have meanings. if you want to convey a meaning to someone you use the words that have the meaning you intend. if you mean something else, use different words. and what you said was, "Cardio training strengthens the heart, through muscle hypertrophy, which increases the oxygen capacity of one's hemoglobin." you, very specifically, said "the oxygen capacity of one's hemoglobin." pardon me for assuming that you meant what you said.

 

and, for the third or fourth time, this does actually have nothing to do with what is supposed to be the topic of this thread. cardiac hypertrophy is not on the table.

 

 

Honestly fitness has more to do with work than nutrition in general. I can demonstrate that by not going to the gym and eating.

 

well, obviously, if you stop going to the gym and still eat you will lose fitness. but if you stop eating and go to the gym you will also lose fitness, and eventually die of starvation. I'm not sure either scenario proves anything.

 

I'm not a huge fan of argument from authority, but at the time of his death in May 1975, Steve Prefontaine held every American outdoor track record from 2,000 metres to 10,000 metres, which I believe gives him the right to be heard, and he once gave a commencement address to students at the University of Oregon in which he said that the three central pillars of success in athletics were diet, rest, and training.

 

 

this article states ketogens increase mitochondria

 

you're right, it does. it says, "...using electron microscopy, the authors directly demonstrated an increased number of hippocampal mitochondria, which appeared to be localized primarily to dendrites and axon terminals." which means that the KD diet, a diet they also said was, "80–90% fat and is often unpalatable and potentially unhealthy" did however increase mitochondria at nerve axons in the hippocampus of rat brains. they speculated that these, "enable neurons to better withstand metabolic challenges in the face of increased energy demand" during epileptic seizure. I'm not clear how that relates to exercise induced increases in mitochondria in skeletal muscles, but there you go.

 

one thing this paper said that I do find interesting, even though it is not germane to the topic of this thread, is that, "Microarray analysis of cardiac genes in treadmill-trained rats revealed a preferential change in gene expression that would predict an increase in FAO (Fatty Acid Oxidation)." which seems to imply that diet can effect gene expression, at least as far as FAO is concerned.

 

 

As far as wrestlers having higher mitochondria. That's not from muscle biopsies, its a to b logic.

 

that's fine then. we can stop doing science and just use Super Polymath's a to b logic from now on. all we have to do to increase our mitochondria is wear a lycra leotard and wriggle around on the floor. I'll just go and open a shop selling gym mats to capitalise on the expected rush.

 

 

Increased hemoglobin volume increases muscle mitochondria,

 

unproven assumption.

 

 

ketogens increase increase mitochondria.

 

at nerve axons in the hippocampus. this might, theoretically, improve central nervous system performance by increasing the speed at which neurons fire or at which nerve signals travel to the muscles, but this has yet to be shown. any improvement in exercise performance would be minimal and probably not even measurable.

 

 

cutting weight through intermittent fasting increases ketogens.

 

the KD diet increases ketogens, but that does not require or involve weight loss and it is not intermittent fasting.

 

 

 Wrestlers have the most grueling cardio sessions

 

lol

 

 

 

A + B = my conclusion. It's likely.

 

as far as I can tell, you don't have an A or a B. so (0 + 0 = 0) would be the best way to summarise your "theory."

 

 

 

Humans have limits ... we don't have any limits.

 

okay.

[Super Polymath]

there are three types of muscle in the human body, cardiac muscle in the heart, smooth muscle in the respiratory and digestive systems, and skeletal muscles. the skeletal muscles are the ones that deal with balance, posture and movement and they are the muscles I am interested in. in this thread, whatever happens to cardiac muscle is not germane. the paper you linked to, twice, and which you seem to be upset that I ignored, is about cardiac muscle, and is therefore not relevant to the topic of this thread. that's the first reason.

 

Wait, blood pumps through every skeletal muscle by way of the heart, so doesn't improving cardiac muscle improve blood flow to skeletal muscle? I'd assume this will bode well for the muscle mitochondria, at least in aiding with ATP if doesn't outright increase muscle mitochondria.

 

I'll tell you what, because I feel the need here, I will touch on that later in this post, with more citation

in part 2. of the paper, models of hypertrophy, they said, "Isometric exercise (e.g. weightlifting) leads to physiological hypertrophy," whereas no person cognisant with exercise physiology would consider weightlifting to be an isometric exercise. then they say, "In contrast, endurance training (e.g. running, swimming, and cycling) is characterized by isotonic exercise," and, again, it is impossible to envisage any of those activities being isotonic in nature. these folks have probably forgotten more about rat brains than I would ever want to know but I would take anything they say about exercise physiology with a huge pinch of salt. that's the second reason.

and, third reason, it doesn't say what you said it says. the study is investigating the idea that, "a distinct signature found in mitochondria could potentially predict the nature of the hypertrophic response," and the signature they are expecting to see is metabolic in nature. they are looking at changes in enzyme activity, changes in gene expression, changes in oxidation rates or capacity, changes in ratio of phosphocreatine to ATP, changes to the structure or function of mitochondria, not their number or density.

 

Shouldnt be so bold as to value yourself over a peer review paper

 

 you're at least willing to read that whole PDF, kudos. I'd assumed you hadn't but I was wrong. 

 

 

that's fine then. we can stop doing science and just use Super Polymath's a to b logic from now on. all we have to do to increase our mitochondria is wear a lycra leotard and wriggle around on the floor.

Are you Gregory House? this remark about going off assumptions sounds Like something the character would say lol

 

I never meant that presumptions are as good as proof, sorry for the miscommunication

 

 

all we have to do to increase our mitochondria is wear a lycra leotard and wriggle around on the floor. I'll just go and open a shop selling gym mats to capitalise on the expected rush.

you'd be surprised with some of the **** people pull these days

 

 

unproven assumption.

Time for me to keep my word and touch on this subject again with more citation, because I'm cool like that. Given the pdf I'm still not clear on this. I read it, and you seem to disagree with it. However, by your very own admission, part 2 does state there's at least some correlation. That is a peer reviewed paper, right? Just in case, this entry seems to strongly affirm my "assumption" about how the hemoglobin works with mitochondria

 

As far as I can discern, it says blood "feeds oxygen" to the mitochondria. To my knowledge (and it's been a while), if the mitochondria eats, it divides. 

 

he KD diet increases ketogens, but that does not require or involve weight loss and it is not intermittent fasting.

actually fasting alone increases ketogens or "ketone bodies" in the bloodstream, and your blood does go into skeletal muscle. 

 

Just control-f ketones.

 

here's the citation for that paper

 

 

 

okay

 

Yeah....

 

oops

 

regarding the limits thing, I aught to proof read my responses haha. The two times I used limits, I think I meant to infer two different connotations, when I say humans have limits, I mean there's no one that's going to be able to do one million pushups in a row, like, ever. But in my second usage, saying humans experience more of a plateau than a limit, I meant to infer that placing a set amount, like for instance the limit is 500 pushups, no one can more than 500 pushups in a row. Actually you might squeeze 501, there's really no exact limit, but a million is certainly past any inexact limit. hope you could follow that. 

 

So all you accepted from all this was the kd diet. At least that's something

 

ps apologies for any sloppiness, confusing dialogue, etc I'm out of it right now. I'm a college brat in his early 20s ain't seen much sleep these days. And if I seemed mad, so long as I'm not a complete a-hole I'm probably just being too blunt but I mean well

 

This article is specially about mitochondrial biogenesis. It basically affirms most of what I've explained. 

 

It's less specific but, it claims mitochondria do increase longevity, claims you have to workout to increase them, claims insulin sensitivity is key to mitochondrial density (& intermittent fasting does, in fact, increase insulin sensitivity).

 

I'd hate to say I told ya so. 

 

Also, remember how I said some of these things? 

 

To give you perspective, 140 countries participated in the Olympics, while approximately 50 nations competed at the Friendship Games. Nevertheless, the Friendship Games athletes outperformed the Olympic Games sportsmen in 20 of 41 track and field events. In fact, a bunch of Olympic gold medalists wouldn’t have even placed in many of the events since more than 60 Friendship Game results were good enough to secure medals at the Olympics. The Russians broke numerous world records and would have been some of the top Olympians in weightlifting and wrestling. In other words, the Russian athletes were better prepared and better trained. Period.

 

Enter what I call The Russian Fat Loss Secret: a strength-aerobic workout that targets both your fast-twitch and your slow-twitch muscle fibers. This is the same strategy used by Russian sports scientists decades ago. So you build muscle and strength, burn fat, and improve your total-body fitness fast.

 

Now, can you guess what mitochondria like to use to produce this energy? Body fat. That’s right: The more mitochondria you have; the more fat you can burn.

 

This is Khabib, a top Russian sambo fighter 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxXefsnzPnA

 

Sambo is what you get when the Russians militarize Olympic wrestling to develop their own version of BJJ. 

 

He's 24-0 in the UFC

 

So there you have it. /thread

Edited April 30, 2017 by Super Polymath