Gonzalez Adam M, Hoffman Jay R, Townsend Jeremy R, Jajtner Adam R, Boone Carleigh H, Beyer Kyle S, Baker Kayla M, Wells Adam J, Mangine Gerald T, Robinson Edward H, Church David D, Oliveira Leonardo P, Willoughby Darryn S, Fukuda David H, Stout Jeffrey R
Institute of Exercise Physiology and Wellness, Sport and Exercise Science, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA.
Institute of Exercise Physiology and Wellness, Sport and Exercise Science, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA
Physiol Rep. 2015 Jul;3(7). doi: 10.14814/phy2.12466.
Resistance exercise paradigms are often divided into high volume (HV) or high intensity (HI) protocols, however, it is unknown whether these protocols differentially stimulate mTORC1 signaling. The purpose of this study was to examine mTORC1 signaling in conjunction with circulating hormone concentrations following a typical HV and HI lower-body resistance exercise protocol. Ten resistance-trained men (24.7 ± 3.4 years; 90.1 ± 11.3 kg; 176.0 ± 4.9 cm) performed each resistance exercise protocol in a random, counterbalanced order. Blood samples were obtained at baseline (BL), immediately (IP), 30 min (30P), 1 h (1H), 2 h (2H), and 5 h (5H) postexercise. Fine needle muscle biopsies were completed at BL, 1H, and 5H. Electromyography of the vastus lateralis was also recorded during each protocol. HV and HI produced a similar magnitude of muscle activation across sets. Myoglobin and lactate dehydrogenase concentrations were significantly greater following HI compared to HV (P = 0.01-0.02), whereas the lactate response was significantly higher following HV compared to HI (P = 0.003). The growth hormone, cortisol, and insulin responses were significantly greater following HV compared to HI (P = 0.0001-0.04). No significant differences between protocols were observed for the IGF-1 or testosterone response. Intramuscular anabolic signaling analysis revealed a significantly greater (P = 0.03) phosphorylation of IGF-1 receptor at 1H following HV compared to HI. Phosphorylation status of all other signaling proteins including mTOR, p70S6k, and RPS6 were not significantly different between trials. Despite significant differences in markers of muscle damage and the endocrine response following HV and HI, both protocols appeared to elicit similar mTORC1 activation in resistance-trained men.
抗阻训练模式通常分为高容量(HV)或高强度(HI)方案,然而,尚不清楚这些方案是否会对mTORC1信号传导产生不同的刺激。本研究的目的是在典型的HV和HI下肢抗阻训练方案后,结合循环激素浓度来检查mTORC1信号传导。十名经过抗阻训练的男性(24.7±3.4岁;90.1±11.3千克;176.0±4.9厘米)以随机、交叉平衡的顺序进行每种抗阻训练方案。在运动前基线(BL)、运动后即刻(IP)、30分钟(30P)、1小时(1H)、2小时(2H)和5小时(5H)采集血样。在BL、1H和5H完成细针肌肉活检。在每个方案期间还记录了股外侧肌的肌电图。HV和HI在各训练组中产生的肌肉激活程度相似。与HV相比,HI后的肌红蛋白和乳酸脱氢酶浓度显著更高(P = 0.01 - 0.02),而与HI相比,HV后的乳酸反应显著更高(P = 0.003)。与HI相比,HV后的生长激素、皮质醇和胰岛素反应显著更大(P = 0.0001 - 0.04)。在IGF - 1或睾酮反应方面,各方案之间未观察到显著差异。肌肉内合成代谢信号分析显示,与HI相比,HV后1小时IGF - 1受体的磷酸化显著增加(P = 0.03)。包括mTOR、p70S6k和RPS6在内的所有其他信号蛋白的磷酸化状态在各试验之间无显著差异。尽管HV和HI后肌肉损伤标志物和内分泌反应存在显著差异,但两种方案在经过抗阻训练的男性中似乎都能引发相似的mTORC1激活。