RESUMEN
The manipulation of resistance training (RT) variables is used among athletes, recreational exercisers, and compromised populations (e.g., elderly) attempting to potentiate muscle hypertrophy. However, it is unknown whether an individual's inherent predisposition dictates the RT-induced muscle hypertrophic response. Resistance-trained young [26 (3) y] men (n = 20) performed 8 wk unilateral RT (2 times/wk), with 1 leg randomly assigned to a standard progressive RT [control (CON)] and the contralateral leg to a variable RT (VAR; modulating exercise load, volume, contraction type, and interset rest interval). The VAR leg completed all 4 RT variations every 2 wk. Bilateral vastus lateralis cross-sectional area (CSA) was measured, pre- and post-RT and acute integrated myofibrillar protein synthesis (MyoPS) rates were assessed at rest and over 48 h following the final RT session. Muscle CSA increase was similar between CON and VAR (P > 0.05), despite higher total training volume (TTV) in VAR (P < 0.05). The 0-48-h integrated MyoPS increase postexercise was slightly greater for VAR than CON (P < 0.05). All participants were considered "responders" to RT, although none benefited to a greater extent from a specific protocol. Between-subjects variability (MyoPS, 3.30%; CSA, 37.8%) was 40-fold greater than the intrasubject (between legs) variability (MyoPS, 0.08%; CSA, 0.9%). The higher TTV and greater MyoPS response in VAR did not translate to a greater muscle hypertrophic response. Manipulating common RT variables elicited similar muscle hypertrophy than a standard progressive RT program in trained young men. Intrinsic individual factors are key determinants of the MyoPS and change in muscle CSA compared with extrinsic manipulation of common RT variables.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Systematically manipulating resistance training (RT) variables during RT augments the stimulation of myofibrillar protein synthesis (MyoPS) and training volume but fails to potentiate muscle hypertrophy compared with a standard progressive RT. Any modest further MyoPS increase and higher training volumes do not reflect in a greater hypertrophic response. Between-subject variability was 40-fold greater than the variability promoted by extrinsic manipulation of RT variables, indicating that individual intrinsic factors are stronger determinants of the hypertrophic response.
Asunto(s)
Proteínas Musculares/biosíntesis , Músculo Cuádriceps/metabolismo , Entrenamiento de Fuerza/métodos , Adulto , Humanos , Hipertrofia , Masculino , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
The metabolic stress induced by blood flow restriction (BFR) during resistance training (RT) might maximize muscle growth. However, it is currently unknown whether metabolic stress are associated with muscle hypertrophy after RT protocols with high- or low load. Therefore, the aim of the study was to compare the effect of high load RT (HL-RT), high load BFR (HL-BFR), and low load BFR (LL-BFR) on deoxyhemoglobin concentration [HHb] (proxy marker of metabolic stress), muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), activation, strength, architecture and edema before (T1), after 5 (T2), and 10 weeks (T3) of training with these protocols. Additionally, we analyzed the occurrence of association between muscle deoxygenation and muscle hypertrophy. Thirty young men were selected and each of participants' legs was allocated to one of the three experimental protocols in a randomized and balanced way according to quartiles of the baseline CSA and leg extension 1-RM values of the dominant leg. The dynamic maximum strength was measured by 1-RM test and vastus lateralis (VL) muscle cross-sectional area CSA echo intensity (CSAecho) and pennation angle (PA) were performed through ultrasound images. The measurement of muscle activation by surface electromyography (EMG) and [HHb] through near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) of VL were performed during the training session with relative load obtained after the 1-RM, before (T1), after 5 (T2), and 10 weeks (T3) training. The training total volume (TTV) was greater for HL-RT and HL-BFR compared to LL-BFR. There was no difference in 1-RM, CSA, CSAecho, CSAecho/CSA, and PA increases between protocols. Regarding the magnitude of the EMG, the HL-RT and HL-BFR groups showed higher values than and LL-BFR. On the other hand, [HHb] was higher for HL-BFR and LL-BFR. In conclusion, our results suggest that the addition of BFR to exercise contributes to neuromuscular adaptations only when RT is performed with low-load. Furthermore, we found a significant association between the changes in [HHb] (i.e., metabolic stress) and increases in muscle CSA from T2 to T3 only for the LL-BFR, when muscle edema was attenuated.