Cargando…

Skeletal Muscle Fiber Adaptations Following Resistance Training Using Repetition Maximums or Relative Intensity

The purpose of the study was to compare the physiological responses of skeletal muscle to a resistance training (RT) program using repetition maximum (RM) or relative intensity (RI(SR)). Fifteen well-trained males underwent RT 3 d·wk(−1) for 10 weeks in either an RM group (n = 8) or RI(SR) group (n...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Carroll, Kevin M., Bazyler, Caleb D., Bernards, Jake R., Taber, Christopher B., Stuart, Charles A., DeWeese, Brad H., Sato, Kimitake, Stone, Michael H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6680702/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31373325
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/sports7070169
Descripción
Sumario:The purpose of the study was to compare the physiological responses of skeletal muscle to a resistance training (RT) program using repetition maximum (RM) or relative intensity (RI(SR)). Fifteen well-trained males underwent RT 3 d·wk(−1) for 10 weeks in either an RM group (n = 8) or RI(SR) group (n = 7). The RM group achieved a relative maximum each day, while the RI(SR) group trained based on percentages. The RM group exercised until muscular failure on each exercise, while the RI(SR) group did not reach muscular failure throughout the intervention. Percutaneous needle biopsies of the vastus lateralis were obtained pre-post the training intervention, along with ultrasonography measures. Dependent variables were: Fiber type-specific cross-sectional area (CSA); anatomical CSA (ACSA); muscle thickness (MT); mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR); adenosine monophosphate protein kinase (AMPK); and myosin heavy chains (MHC) specific for type I (MHC1), type IIA (MHC2A), and type IIX (MHC2X). Mixed-design analysis of variance and effect size using Hedge’s g were used to assess within- and between-group alterations. RI(SR) statistically increased type I CSA (p = 0.018, g = 0.56), type II CSA (p = 0.012, g = 0.81), ACSA (p = 0.002, g = 0.53), and MT (p < 0.001, g = 1.47). RI(SR) also yielded a significant mTOR reduction (p = 0.031, g = −1.40). Conversely, RM statistically increased only MT (p = 0.003, g = 0.80). Between-group effect sizes supported RI(SR) for type I CSA (g = 0.48), type II CSA (g = 0.50), ACSA (g = 1.03), MT (g = 0.72), MHC2X (g = 0.31), MHC2A (g = 0.87), and MHC1 (g = 0.59); with all other effects being of trivial magnitude (g < 0.20). Our results demonstrated greater adaptations in fiber size, whole-muscle size, and several key contractile proteins when using RI(SR) compared to RM loading paradigms.