Cargando…
Effect of resistance training to muscle failure vs non-failure on strength, hypertrophy and muscle architecture in trained individuals
The aim of this study was to compare the effects of resistance training to muscle failure (RT-F) and non-failure (RT-NF) on muscle mass, strength and activation of trained individuals. We also compared the effects of these protocols on muscle architecture parameters. A within-subjects design was use...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Institute of Sport in Warsaw
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7725035/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33343066 http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2020.96317 |
_version_ | 1783620630189441024 |
---|---|
author | Santanielo, Natalia Nóbrega, Sanmy R. Scarpelli, Maíra C. Alvarez, Ieda F. Otoboni, Gabriele B. Pintanel, Lucas Libardi, Cleiton A. |
author_facet | Santanielo, Natalia Nóbrega, Sanmy R. Scarpelli, Maíra C. Alvarez, Ieda F. Otoboni, Gabriele B. Pintanel, Lucas Libardi, Cleiton A. |
author_sort | Santanielo, Natalia |
collection | PubMed |
description | The aim of this study was to compare the effects of resistance training to muscle failure (RT-F) and non-failure (RT-NF) on muscle mass, strength and activation of trained individuals. We also compared the effects of these protocols on muscle architecture parameters. A within-subjects design was used in which 14 participants had one leg randomly assigned to RT-F and the other to RT-NF. Each leg was trained 2 days per week for 10 weeks. Vastus lateralis (VL) muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), pennation angle (PA), fascicle length (FL) and 1-repetition maximum (1-RM) were assessed at baseline (Pre) and after 20 sessions (Post). The electromyographic signal (EMG) was assessed after the training period. RT-F and RT-NF protocols showed significant and similar increases in CSA (RT-F: 13.5% and RT-NF: 18.1%; P < 0.0001), PA (RT-F: 13.7% and RT-NF: 14.4%; P < 0.0001) and FL (RT-F: 11.8% and RT-NF: 8.6%; P < 0.0001). All protocols showed significant and similar increases in leg press (RT-F: 22.3% and RT-NF: 26.7%; P < 0.0001) and leg extension (RT-F: 33.3%, P < 0.0001 and RT-NF: 33.7%; P < 0.0001) 1-RM loads. No significant differences in EMG amplitude were detected between protocols (P > 0.05). In conclusion, RT-F and RT-NF are similarly effective in promoting increases in muscle mass, PA, FL, strength and activation. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7725035 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Institute of Sport in Warsaw |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-77250352020-12-17 Effect of resistance training to muscle failure vs non-failure on strength, hypertrophy and muscle architecture in trained individuals Santanielo, Natalia Nóbrega, Sanmy R. Scarpelli, Maíra C. Alvarez, Ieda F. Otoboni, Gabriele B. Pintanel, Lucas Libardi, Cleiton A. Biol Sport Original Paper The aim of this study was to compare the effects of resistance training to muscle failure (RT-F) and non-failure (RT-NF) on muscle mass, strength and activation of trained individuals. We also compared the effects of these protocols on muscle architecture parameters. A within-subjects design was used in which 14 participants had one leg randomly assigned to RT-F and the other to RT-NF. Each leg was trained 2 days per week for 10 weeks. Vastus lateralis (VL) muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), pennation angle (PA), fascicle length (FL) and 1-repetition maximum (1-RM) were assessed at baseline (Pre) and after 20 sessions (Post). The electromyographic signal (EMG) was assessed after the training period. RT-F and RT-NF protocols showed significant and similar increases in CSA (RT-F: 13.5% and RT-NF: 18.1%; P < 0.0001), PA (RT-F: 13.7% and RT-NF: 14.4%; P < 0.0001) and FL (RT-F: 11.8% and RT-NF: 8.6%; P < 0.0001). All protocols showed significant and similar increases in leg press (RT-F: 22.3% and RT-NF: 26.7%; P < 0.0001) and leg extension (RT-F: 33.3%, P < 0.0001 and RT-NF: 33.7%; P < 0.0001) 1-RM loads. No significant differences in EMG amplitude were detected between protocols (P > 0.05). In conclusion, RT-F and RT-NF are similarly effective in promoting increases in muscle mass, PA, FL, strength and activation. Institute of Sport in Warsaw 2020-07-05 2020-12 /pmc/articles/PMC7725035/ /pubmed/33343066 http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2020.96317 Text en Copyright © Biology of Sport 2020 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Paper Santanielo, Natalia Nóbrega, Sanmy R. Scarpelli, Maíra C. Alvarez, Ieda F. Otoboni, Gabriele B. Pintanel, Lucas Libardi, Cleiton A. Effect of resistance training to muscle failure vs non-failure on strength, hypertrophy and muscle architecture in trained individuals |
title | Effect of resistance training to muscle failure vs non-failure on strength, hypertrophy and muscle architecture in trained individuals |
title_full | Effect of resistance training to muscle failure vs non-failure on strength, hypertrophy and muscle architecture in trained individuals |
title_fullStr | Effect of resistance training to muscle failure vs non-failure on strength, hypertrophy and muscle architecture in trained individuals |
title_full_unstemmed | Effect of resistance training to muscle failure vs non-failure on strength, hypertrophy and muscle architecture in trained individuals |
title_short | Effect of resistance training to muscle failure vs non-failure on strength, hypertrophy and muscle architecture in trained individuals |
title_sort | effect of resistance training to muscle failure vs non-failure on strength, hypertrophy and muscle architecture in trained individuals |
topic | Original Paper |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7725035/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33343066 http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2020.96317 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT santanielonatalia effectofresistancetrainingtomusclefailurevsnonfailureonstrengthhypertrophyandmusclearchitectureintrainedindividuals AT nobregasanmyr effectofresistancetrainingtomusclefailurevsnonfailureonstrengthhypertrophyandmusclearchitectureintrainedindividuals AT scarpellimairac effectofresistancetrainingtomusclefailurevsnonfailureonstrengthhypertrophyandmusclearchitectureintrainedindividuals AT alvareziedaf effectofresistancetrainingtomusclefailurevsnonfailureonstrengthhypertrophyandmusclearchitectureintrainedindividuals AT otobonigabrieleb effectofresistancetrainingtomusclefailurevsnonfailureonstrengthhypertrophyandmusclearchitectureintrainedindividuals AT pintanellucas effectofresistancetrainingtomusclefailurevsnonfailureonstrengthhypertrophyandmusclearchitectureintrainedindividuals AT libardicleitona effectofresistancetrainingtomusclefailurevsnonfailureonstrengthhypertrophyandmusclearchitectureintrainedindividuals |