Search

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]

This exploratory secondary data analysis compared the effects of a percentage of 1 repetition maximum (%1RM) and a repetition zone (RM Zone) progression model carried out to muscle failure on volume load progression (VLPro), muscle strength, and cross-sectional area (CSA). The sample comprised 24 untrained men separated in 2 groups: %1RM (n = 14) and RM Zone (n = 10). Muscle CSA and muscle strength (1RM) were assessed before and after 24 training sessions, and an analysis of covariance was used. Volume load progression and accumulated VL (VLAccu) were compared between groups. The relationships between VLProg, VLAccu, 1RM, and CSA increases were also investigated. A significance level of p = 0.05 was adopted for all statistical procedures. Volume load progression was greater for RM Zone compared with %1RM (2.30 ± 0.58% per session vs. 1.01 ± 0.55% per session; p < 0.05). Significant relationships were found between 1RM and VLProg (p < 0.05) and CSA and VLProg (p < 0.05). No between-group differences were found for VLAccu (p > 0.05). Analysis of covariance revealed no between-group differences for 1RM absolute (p < 0.05) or relative changes (p < 0.05). However, post hoc testing revealed greater absolute and relative changes in CSA for the RM Zone group compared with the %1RM group (p < 0.001). In conclusion, RM Zone resulted in a greater VLPro rate and muscle CSA gains compared with %1RM, with no differences in VLAccu and muscle strength gains between progression models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]