Vann Christopher G, Sexton Casey L, Osburn Shelby C, Smith Morgan A, Haun Cody T, Rumbley Melissa N, Mumford Petey W, Montgomery Nathan T, Ruple Bradley A, McKendry James, Mcleod Jonathan, Bashir Adil, Beyers Ronald J, Brook Matthew S, Smith Kenneth, Atherton Philip J, Beck Darren T, McDonald James R, Young Kaelin C, Phillips Stuart M, Roberts Michael D
School of Kinesiology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, United States.
Duke Molecular Physiology Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States.
Front Physiol. 2022 Mar 11;13:857555. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2022.857555. eCollection 2022.
We evaluated the effects of higher-load (HL) versus (lower-load) higher-volume (HV) resistance training on skeletal muscle hypertrophy, strength, and muscle-level molecular adaptations. Trained men ( = 15, age: 23 ± 3 years; training experience: 7 ± 3 years) performed unilateral lower-body training for 6 weeks (3× weekly), where single legs were randomly assigned to HV and HL paradigms. Vastus lateralis (VL) biopsies were obtained prior to study initiation (PRE) as well as 3 days (POST) and 10 days following the last training bout (POSTPR). Body composition and strength tests were performed at each testing session, and biochemical assays were performed on muscle tissue after study completion. Two-way within-subject repeated measures ANOVAs were performed on most dependent variables, and tracer data were compared using dependent samples t-tests. A significant interaction existed for VL muscle cross-sectional area (assessed magnetic resonance imaging; interaction = 0.046), where HV increased this metric from PRE to POST (+3.2%, = 0.018) whereas HL training did not (-0.1%, = 0.475). Additionally, HL increased leg extensor strength more so than HV training (interaction = 0.032; HV < HL at POST and POSTPR, < 0.025 for each). Six-week integrated non-myofibrillar protein synthesis (iNon-MyoPS) rates were also higher in the HV versus HL condition, while no difference between conditions existed for iMyoPS rates. No interactions existed for other strength, VL morphology variables, or the relative abundances of major muscle proteins. Compared to HL training, 6 weeks of HV training in previously trained men optimizes VL hypertrophy in lieu of enhanced iNon-MyoPS rates, and this warrants future research.
我们评估了高负荷(HL)与低负荷高容量(HV)抗阻训练对骨骼肌肥大、力量和肌肉水平分子适应性的影响。受过训练的男性(n = 15,年龄:23±3岁;训练经验:7±3年)进行了为期6周(每周3次)的单侧下肢训练,单腿被随机分配到HV和HL训练模式。在研究开始前(PRE)、最后一次训练后3天(POST)和10天(POSTPR)获取股外侧肌(VL)活检样本。在每次测试时进行身体成分和力量测试,并在研究完成后对肌肉组织进行生化分析。对大多数因变量进行双向受试者内重复测量方差分析,并使用相关样本t检验比较示踪数据。VL肌肉横截面积存在显著交互作用(通过磁共振成像评估;交互作用 = 0.046),其中HV使该指标从PRE到POST增加(+3.2%,P = 0.018),而HL训练则没有(-0.1%,P = 0.475)。此外,HL比HV训练更能增加伸腿力量(交互作用 = 0.032;POST和POSTPR时HV < HL,两者P均<0.025)。HV组的六周综合非肌原纤维蛋白合成(iNon-MyoPS)率也高于HL组,而iMyoPS率在两组之间没有差异。在其他力量、VL形态变量或主要肌肉蛋白的相对丰度方面不存在交互作用。与HL训练相比,先前受过训练的男性进行6周的HV训练可优化VL肥大,而不是提高iNon-MyoPS率,这值得未来进一步研究。