RESUMEN
Progressive overload describes the gradual increase of stress placed on the body during exercise training, and is often quantified (i.e. in resistance training studies) through increases in total training volume (i.e. sets × repetitions × load) from the first to final week of the exercise training intervention. Within the literature, it has become increasingly common for authors to discuss skeletal muscle growth adaptations in the context of increases in total training volume (i.e. the magnitude progression in total training volume). The present manuscript discusses a physiological rationale for progressive overload and then explains why, in our opinion, quantifying the progression of total training volume within research investigations tells very little about muscle growth adaptations to resistance training. Our opinion is based on the following research findings: (1) a noncausal connection between increases in total training volume (i.e. progressively overloading the resistance exercise stimulus) and increases in skeletal muscle size; (2) similar changes in total training volume may not always produce similar increases in muscle size; and (3) the ability to exercise more and consequently amass larger increases in total training volume may not inherently produce more skeletal muscle growth. The methodology of quantifying changes in total training volume may therefore provide a means through which researchers can mathematically determine the total amount of external 'work' performed within a resistance training study. It may not, however, always explain muscle growth adaptations.
Asunto(s)
Músculo Esquelético , Entrenamiento de Fuerza , Humanos , Músculo Esquelético/crecimiento & desarrollo , Músculo Esquelético/fisiología , Adaptación FisiológicaRESUMEN
Considerable inter-individual heterogeneity exists in the muscular adaptations to resistance training. It has been proposed that fast-twitch fibres are more sensitive to hypertrophic stimuli and thus that variation in muscle fibre type composition is a contributing factor to the magnitude of training response. This study investigated if the inter-individual variability in resistance training adaptations is determined by muscle typology and if the most appropriate weekly training frequency depends on muscle typology. In strength-training novices, 11 slow (ST) and 10 fast typology (FT) individuals were selected by measuring muscle carnosine with proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Participants trained both upper arm and leg muscles to failure at 60% of one-repetition maximum (1RM) for 10 weeks, whereby one arm and leg trained 3×/week and the contralateral arm and leg 2×/week. Muscle volume (MRI-based 3D segmentation), maximal dynamic strength (1RM) and fibre type-specific cross-sectional area (vastus lateralis biopsies) were evaluated. The training response for total muscle volume (+3 to +14%), fibre size (-19 to +22%) and strength (+17 to +47%) showed considerable inter-individual variability, but these could not be attributed to differences in muscle typology. However, ST individuals performed a significantly higher training volume to gain these similar adaptations than FT individuals. The limb that trained 3×/week had generally more pronounced hypertrophy than the limb that trained 2×/week, and there was no interaction with muscle typology. In conclusion, muscle typology cannot explain the high variability in resistance training adaptations when training is performed to failure at 60% of 1RM. KEY POINTS: This study investigated the influence of muscle typology (muscle fibre type composition) on the variability in resistance training adaptations and on its role in the individualization of resistance training frequency. We demonstrate that an individual's muscle typology cannot explain the inter-individual variability in resistance training-induced increases in muscle volume, maximal dynamic strength and fibre cross-sectional area when repetitions are performed to failure. Importantly, slow typology individuals performed a significantly higher training volume to obtain similar adaptations compared to fast typology individuals. Muscle typology does not determine the most appropriate resistance training frequency. However, regardless of muscle typology, an additional weekly training (3×/week vs. 2×/week) increases muscle hypertrophy but not maximal dynamic strength. These findings expand on our understanding of the underlying mechanisms for the large inter-individual variability in resistance training adaptations.
Asunto(s)
Entrenamiento de Fuerza , Humanos , Entrenamiento de Fuerza/métodos , Músculo Esquelético/fisiología , Fibras Musculares Esqueléticas , Músculo Cuádriceps , Adaptación Fisiológica , Hipertrofia , Fuerza Muscular/fisiologíaRESUMEN
This study aimed to investigate the effect of 3 different eccentric-only power training volumes on muscle fiber type composition and power performance. Twenty-nine females were assigned into 3 groups and performed 10 weeks of either 3 (low volume), 6 (moderate volume), or 9 (high volume) sets/session of 4 fast-velocity eccentric-only half-squats against 70% of concentric 1-repetition maximum (1RM), followed by 3 maximum countermovement jumps (CMJs) after each set. Half-squat 1RM, CMJ height/power, maximum isometric force, rate of force development (RFD) and muscle fiber cross-sectional area (CSA) were increased in all groups (p = 0.001). Low-volume training induced higher increases in CMJ height/power and early RFD, compared with the moderate- and high-volume training programs (p < 0.001). Significant reductions in type IIx muscle fiber percentages and %CSAs were found after moderate- and high-volume training, with concomitant increases in type IIa fibers (p = 0.001). Significant correlations were found between the changes in type IIa and type IIx percentages, fiber CSA, %CSA, and the changes in performance (r: -0.787 to 0.792; p < 0.05). These results suggest that relatively large eccentric power training volumes may result in detrimental neuromuscular adaptations, minimal changes in early RFD, and a reduction of type IIx muscle fiber percentage. Novelty Low but not high volume of power training maintains type IIx muscle fibers. Early rate of force development increases after a low- or moderate-power training volume, but not after a high-power training volume. Training-induced changes in type IIx muscle fiber percentage is related with changes in early rate of force development.