What is muscle maturity?

[KyleSmith1985]

It seems like its just the process of getting leaner, thinner skin and more muscle over time. Is there a more in depth physiological process of "Muscle maturity". I ask because an IFBB competitor (23 years old) at my gym said the juges feedback was they need more "muscle maturity". What are you supposed to do with that information besides get leaner and more muscular?

 

[Ranchhand]

There're guys more qualified to answer this question than me, but I would call muscle maturity as that hard grainy look with muscle separation. It can take years to develop the striations in the muscle.

 

[AllOkJumpmaster]

In my opinion, there is just a different look between tissue that has been built through mechanical tension, and progressive overload for years, decades, compared to muscle that is a direct result of drugs. There was a kid a year or two ago that won an IFBB pro card in classic at age 19. He looked great, but there is no way had enough years of slinging iron under his belt to truly build that muscle. If he came off he would deflate. I am not saying AAS muscle isn't "real", but we have studies proving that a guy on testosterone who doesn't lift built more muscle than a natty that did train. The difference in the look of the muscle between those groups is obvious, but kind of hard to describe.

All of that said, it is weird for a fucking judge, of all people, to tell a 23yr old he needs more "muscle maturity" when it is not something you can just attain in an offseason, or a short amount of time. Seems extremely disingenuous, I get what they mean about the guys look, but you can't just go get it, like you can add size, or be leaner next show.

 

[professionaldyel]

I genuinely think its just your skin getting thinner from collagen production being reduced aka aging, nothing else makes sense imo. "But professionaldyel!!! xyz steroid increases collagen production and gh increases it as well!!!" Clearly not the case again when we're combining the entire steroid cabinet and causing oxidative stress.

 

[Fleezy]

Myofibril vs sarcoplasm IMO

What ‘sticks’ to you vs what doesn’t



Also aging causing collagen loss resulting in thinner skin I guess

 

[hawkmoon]

Myofibril vs sarcoplasm IMO

What ‘sticks’ to you vs what doesn’t



Also aging causing collagen loss resulting in thinner skin I guess

Agree.

Actual lean tissue as opposed to fluid and glycogen.

People with the "grainy look" tend to hold onto more tissue without PEDs and later into life.

Without thinner skin however you will never see it. Age does thin the skin, but it's more than that, more genetic attributes like how the skin adheres to the muscle fascia, etc.

Edit: agree with others that chasing the look with specific AAS is a fool's errand.

 

[qbkilla]

In my opinion, there is just a different look between tissue that has been built through mechanical tension, and progressive overload for years, decades, compared to muscle that is a direct result of drugs. There was a kid a year or two ago that won an IFBB pro card in classic at age 19. He looked great, but there is no way had enough years of slinging iron under his belt to truly build that muscle. If he came off he would deflate. I am not saying AAS muscle isn't "real", but we have studies proving that a guy on testosterone who doesn't lift built more muscle than a natty that did train. The difference in the look of the muscle between those groups is obvious, but kind of hard to describe.

All of that said, it is weird for a fucking judge, of all people, to tell a 23yr old he needs more "muscle maturity" when it is not something you can just attain in an offseason, or a short amount of time. Seems extremely disingenuous, I get what they mean about the guys look, but you can't just go get it, like you can add size, or be leaner next show.

Tend to agree with this.

 

[specter]

i read somewhere years ago an answer to this question and it went like something like this....
"the grainy look is among other things getting rid of all the intramuscular fat deposits you can"
Other then that i agree wight the above answers, muscle built and held through hard work, thinning the skin as much as one can, genetics and offcourse the right drugs.

 

[Mufasa123]

Myofibril vs sarcoplasm IMO

What ‘sticks’ to you vs what doesn’t

This is how I'd think about it. Actual tissue and structure built vs inflating what has been built. Pump is short term and goes away, as does sarcoplasmic adaptation within a muscle (just longer than pump but similar thematically).

Real muscle takes a long time to build. Also a long time to lose and even then the structure is there and body can rebuild at an accelerated rate given right environment/tools compared to building new and never held muscle (universally anecdotal and backed by conclusive science so not only bro lore). I loosely refer to this as an older downsized lifter's cheat code. Getting old sucks so it's nice that after decades of work, at least this factor remains in our favor.

 

[GrowthKing1]

Muscle built through out the year

 

[hawkmoon]

This is how I'd think about it. Actual tissue and structure built vs inflating what has been built. Pump is short term and goes away, as does sarcoplasmic adaptation within a muscle (just longer than pump but similar thematically).

Some will think me mad, but I always focus on building real tissue, and it has served me well. I doubt I'd look the same at my age if I had trained differently.

I know more "pump" workouts might give a rounder look, but it's temporary. Just like I know running GH all the time will make me rounder and fuller, but it's also temporary.

I save all that for the stage time. I'm a good deal bigger than most anyone around anyway. I don't need to be "full" to popping levels all the time. I prefer looking hard and (semi)grainy most of the time.

 

[mike-dike]

John Meadows (RIP John) always comes to mind when I hear that term.

That granite look is just something that young guns cannot have, and is earned with decades of hard grind under the bar.

The Judge might have meant something completely different though.

 

[Mufasa123]

Some will think me mad, but I always focus on building real tissue, and it has served me well. I doubt I'd look the same at my age if I had trained differently.

I know more "pump" workouts might give a rounder look, but it's temporary. Just like I know running GH all the time will make me rounder and fuller, but it's also temporary.

I save all that for the stage time. I'm a good deal bigger than most anyone around anyway. I don't need to be "full" to popping levels all the time. I prefer looking hard and (semi)grainy most of the time.

I don't think that's crazy at all. Makes 100% sense. You can always fluff out the muscle you've built in a short period but you can't fluff out what you never built because it simply isn't there.

Building 20lbs of pure muscle takes real effort over years. Making it look pretty/optimal and fluffing it out...6 or maybe 12 weeks AT MOST and is an option that's always available.

I think Dante used to raise this point all the time - this is mostly for others that might be reading, I know you know all this. Most fail to become BBers due to pure lack of muscle - not being lean for a contest or not being "full". Focus on the main goal and that's building the muscle. I recall a 300lbs+ powerlifter who most would call sloppy and fat. Dude leaned down into a (not stage ready but not far off either) chiseled 260lbs with abs. Looked like an absolute specimen and he posted it for people to drive the point that it's about muscle. This guy trained, built it and had it. People might laugh at his fat or his training and how it wasn't optimal and not a BBing program - yet here the dude leans out and he looks more like a bodybuilder than nearly the entire forum.

 

[Big Dave Smith]

It’s more related to how your muscles look through age and heavier training.

When people say that it’s myofibril vs sarcoplasmic, it’s not a fully complete idea… as most are probably following similar nutrition and fluid protocols. If they are, both types of bodies are fully or at least partially glycogenated when on stage. If so, how can one guy be 240, lean, and have a sarcoplasmic look… standing next to a similarly lean guy with a myofibril look? That would imply that the sarcoplasmic guy would have way, way more potential than the myofibril guy… as all he would need to do is “train heavier”, and could completely change his look AND gain way more tissue than he has.

On the other side, I don’t see the myofibril guy switching over to pumping sets and suddenly filling out like dry sponges.

John Meadows had great “maturity”, but wasn’t known for his heavy lifts. He did train heavier when he was younger, but it’s not as if he somehow achieved his look and just switched over to sarcoplasmic training when he achieved it.

Genetics and time.

I don’t think a lot of guys are out there now doing “mostly pumping”, with the other side mostly training like Dorian.

 

[buck]

The appearance of more muscle density is how i think of it. Can likley be brought about by a few things. Seems i see it far more in people that have trained very heavy.

 

[kadafi2]

I think the "true myofibrillar tissue" theory is the most plausible. The theory that it's best built by training with heavy weights also sounds reasonable. One thing's for sure: you can't achieve this look with any training, diet, or any AAS in five years; it takes decades of lifting. Just look at the most talented athletes of the younger generation, like Nihat Khaya. These are "young" muscles. On the other hand, muscles in a 70-year-old also look different, so we can assume that the best age to achieve this maturity is 40-50.

And if judges tell a young athlete that she lacks "maturity," that's unusual feedback. It's like saying, in other words, "train for at least 10 more years and we'll see how you look."

Player photo by @luki7788, a perfect example of mature muscles.

 

[Alan1]

I recall a 300lbs+ powerlifter who most would call sloppy and fat. Dude leaned down into a (not stage ready but not far off either) chiseled 260lbs with abs. Looked like an absolute specimen and he posted it for people to drive the point that it's about muscle. This guy trained, built it and had it. People might laugh at his fat or his training and how it wasn't optimal and not a BBing program - yet here the dude leans out and he looks more like a bodybuilder than nearly the entire forum.

May well have been Dave Gulledge on the T-Nation forums way back in the day. If i remember right his stats were about what you said...went from like 320 to 260-265:

 

[luki7788]

I’ll explain it very simply. If you want to understand muscle maturity, think about meat. Take one pound of beef and one pound of veal. It’s technically the same type of meat, but veal comes from a young animal, while beef comes from an older, mature one.

It’s still meat, but the texture, density, and grain are completely different. That’s basically muscle maturity. It comes mainly with time and age.

Fiber density, sarcoplasm, fat between muscle fibers, everything you mentioned plays a role. But in my opinion, the training style itself is not as important as the years and time spent training.

 

[Mufasa123]

May well have been Dave Gulledge on the T-Nation forums way back in the day. If i remember right his stats were about what you said...went from like 320 to 260-265:
View attachment 249393

This was it! I think he got hurt for a bit and decided to diet down. Shoulders and back are beastly.

 

[Big Dave Smith]

What examples do we have of any open IFBB bodybuilder who looks “less dense” because he “only pumps”?

What examples do we have of any huge bodybuilder over their mid to late 20’s without muscle maturity? How do they train?

What huge bodybuilders over 30 have no muscle maturity?

Most examples anyone brings up on either side of the coin will be statistical outliers.

Training just doesn’t change that much between huge guys, and if you eliminate the top and bottom 10%… basically any example brought up for support falls into that category.