Search

We aimed to compare individual hypertrophic responses to high-load resistance training (HL-RT) or high-load with blood flow restriction (HL-BFR). Furthermore, we investigated whether greater responsiveness to one of the protocols could be explained by acute changes in blood deoxyhemoglobin concentration (HHb) and total hemoglobin concentration (tHb) (proxy markers of metabolic stress). Ten untrained participants had their legs randomized into both HL-RT and HL-BFR and underwent 10 weeks of training. Muscle cross-sectional area (mCSA) was measured at baseline and post training, while HHb and tHb during the final session. Using a threshold of 2 × typical errors (3.24%) to compare protocols, five participants showed greater mCSA increases after HL-RT (16.44 ± 7.90%) compared to HL-BFR (10.74 ± 7.12%, p = 0.0054) and five did not respond better to HL-RT (8.95 ± 10.83%) compared to HL-BFR (13.33 ± 8.59%) (p = 0.3105). Additionally, HL-RT induced lower HHb (5855.78 ± 12905.99; p = 0.0101) and tHb (−43169.70 ± 37793.17; p = 0.0030) AUC values compared to HL-BFR (HHb: 39254.80 ± 27020.15; tHb: 46309.40 ± 31613.97). In conclusion, despite the higher levels of metabolic stress markers, most participants did not present greater muscle hypertrophy by combining blood flow restriction with HL-RT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigated the impact of menstrual cycle (MC) phases and resistance training (RT) on muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) in two MCs utilizing a within-subject design. Twenty women with regular MCs had their legs randomly allocated to either the control (CON) or RT condition, which included 16 training sessions over two MCs. CSA, estradiol (E2), and progesterone (P4) were assessed during the menstruation (M), ovulation (O), and luteal (L) phases in the first (M1, O1, L1) and second (M2, O2, L2) MCs and at the beginning of the third MC (M3). P4 values were significantly higher during the luteal phase than during menstruation (P < 0.0001) and ovulation (P < 0.0001). No significant differences in E2 concentrations were observed between the MC phases (P = 0.08). For the RT condition, the CSA showed significant increases at O2, L2, and M3 compared to baseline (M1) (all P < 0.0001). No significant changes were observed for the CON condition during the two MCs (P > 0.05). However, RT condition showed a significant change in average CSA across two MCs. Additionally, individual analyses revealed that 19 participants showed variation in CSA above or below the minimum detectable difference during the two MCs. These findings suggest that changes in muscle CSA observed during two MCs may not be exclusively attributed to RT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to investigate whether baseline values and acute and chronic changes in androgen receptors (AR) markers, including total AR, cytoplasmic (cAR), and nuclear (nAR) fractions, as well as DNA-binding activity (AR-DNA), are involved in muscle hypertrophy responsiveness by comparing young nonresponder and responder individuals. After 10 wk of resistance training (RT), participants were identified as nonresponders using two typical errors (TE) obtained through two muscle cross-sectional area (mCSA) ultrasound measurements (2 × TE; 4.94%), and the highest responders within our sample were numerically matched. Muscle biopsies were performed at baseline, 24 h after the first RT session (acute responses), and 96 h after the last session (chronic responses). AR, cAR, and nAR were analyzed using Western blotting, and AR-DNA was analyzed using an ELISA-oligonucleotide assay. Twelve participants were identified as nonresponders (ΔmCSA: −1.32%) and 12 as responders (ΔmCSA: 21.35%). There were no baseline differences between groups in mCSA, AR, cAR, nAR, or AR-DNA (P > 0.05). For acute responses, there was a significant difference between nonresponders (+19.5%) and responders (−14.4%) in AR-DNA [effect size (ES) = −1.39; 95% confidence interval (CI): −2.53 to −0.16; P = 0.015]. There were no acute between-group differences in any other AR markers (P > 0.05). No significant differences between groups were observed in chronic responses across any AR markers (P > 0.05). Nonresponders and responders presented similar baseline, acute, and chronic results for the majority of the AR markers. Thus, our findings do not support the influence of AR markers on muscle hypertrophy responsiveness to RT in untrained individuals. NEW & NOTEWORTHY: We explored, for the first time, the influence of androgen receptor (AR) through the separation of cytoplasmic and nuclear cell fractions [i.e., cytoplasmic androgen receptor (cAR), nuclear androgen receptor (nAR), and androgen receptor DNA-binding activity (AR-DNA)] on muscle hypertrophy responsiveness to resistance training. The absence of muscle hypertrophy in naïve individuals does not seem to be explained by baseline values, and acute or chronic changes in AR markers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of progressive overload in resistance training on muscle strength and cross-sectional area (CSA) by specifically comparing the impact of increasing load (LOADprog) versus an increase in repetitions (REPSprog). We used a within-subject experimental design in which 39 previously untrained young persons (20 men and 19 women) had their legs randomized to LOADprog and REPSprog. Outcomes were assessed before and after 10 weeks of training. Muscle strength was assessed using the one repetition maximum (1RM) test on the leg extension exercise, and the CSA of the vastus lateralis was assessed by ultrasonography. Both protocols increased 1RM values from pre (LOADprog: 52.90±16.32 kg; REPSprog: 51.67±15.84 kg) to post (LOADprog: 69.05±18.55 kg, REPSprog: 66.82±17.95 kg), with no difference between them (P +>+0.05). Similarly, both protocols also increased in CSA values from pre (LOADprog: 21.34±4.71 cm²; REPSprog: 21.08±4.62 cm²) to post (LOADprog: 23.53±5.41 cm², REPSprog: 23.39±5.19 cm²), with no difference between them (P +>+0.05). In conclusion, our findings indicate that the progression of overload through load or repetitions can be used to promote gains in strength and muscle hypertrophy in young men and women in the early stages of training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bergamasco, JGA, Gomes da Silva, D, Bittencourt, DF, Martins de Oliveira, R, Júnior, JCB, Caruso, FC, Godoi, D, Borghi-Silva, A, and Libardi, CA. Low-load resistance training performed to muscle failure or near muscle failure does not promote additional gains on muscle strength, hypertrophy, and functional performance of older adults. J Strength Cond Res 36(5): 1209–1215, 2022—The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of low-load resistance training (RT) protocols performed to failure (FAI), to voluntary interruption (VOL), and with a fixed low repetitions (FIX) on muscle strength, hypertrophy, and functional performance in older adults. Forty-one subjects (60–77 years) were randomized into one of the RT protocols (FAI, VOL, or FIX) and completed 12 weeks of RT at 40% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM), twice a week. The assessments included 1RM test, muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), rate of torque development (RTD), and functional performance (chair stand [CS], habitual gait speed [HGS], maximal gait speed [MGS], and timed up-and-go [TUG]). All protocols significantly increased 1RM values from Pre (FAI: 318.3 ± 116.3 kg; VOL: 342.9 ± 93.7 kg; FIX: 328.0 ± 107.2 kg) to Post (FAI: 393.0 ± 143.1 kg, 23.5%; VOL: 423.0 ± 114.5 kg, 23.3%; FIX: 397.8 ± 94.6 kg, 21.3%; p < 0.0001 for all groups). Regarding CS, all protocols showed significant improvements from Pre (FAI: 11.5 ± 2.4 seconds; VOL: 12.1 ± 2.5 seconds; FIX: 11.3 ± 1.1 seconds) to Post (FAI: 10.5 ± 1.1 seconds, −8.5%, p = 0.001; VOL: 10.3 ± 1.5 seconds, −15.1%, p = 0.001; FIX: 11.0 ± 1.1, −3.2%, p = 0.001). Habitual gait speed values increased significantly from Pre (FAI: 1.3 ± 0.2 m·s−1; VOL: 1.3 ± 0.1 m·s−1; FIX: 1.3 ± 0.1 m·s−1) to Post (FAI: 1.4 ± 0.2 m·s−1, 2.5%, p = 0.03; VOL: 1.4 ± 0.2 m·s−1, 5.2%, p = 0.036; FIX: 1.4 ± 0.1 m·s−1, 5.7%, p = 0.03). No significant differences between protocols were found (p > 0.05). In addition, there were no significant changes in CSA, RTD, MGS, and TUG for any protocols (p > 0.05). In conclusion, low-load RT performed without muscle failure promotes significant improvements in muscle strength and some parameters of functional performance in older adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]