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.

Scarpelli, MC, Nóbrega, SR, Santanielo, N, Alvarez, IF, Otoboni, GB, Ugrinowitsch, C, and Libardi, CA. Muscle hypertrophy response is affected by previous resistance training volume in trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res 36(4): 1153–1157, 2022—The purpose of this study was to compare gains in muscle mass of trained individuals after a resistance training (RT) protocol with standardized (i.e., nonindividualized) volume (N-IND), with an RT protocol using individualized volume (IND). In a within-subject approach, 16 subjects had one leg randomly assigned to N-IND (22 sets·wk−1, based on the number of weekly sets prescribed in studies) and IND (1.2 × sets·wk−1 recorded in training logs) protocols. Muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) was assessed by ultrasound imaging at baseline (Pre) and after 8 weeks (Post) of RT, and the significance level was set at p < 0.05. Changes in the vastus lateralis CSA (difference from Pre to Post) were significantly higher for the IND protocol (p = 0.042; mean difference: 1.08 cm2; confidence interval [CI]: 0.04–2.11). The inferential analysis was confirmed by the CI of the effect size (0.75; CI: 0.03–1.47). Also, the IND protocol had a higher proportion of individuals with greater muscle hypertrophy than the typical error of the measurement (chi-square, p = 0.0035; estimated difference = 0.5, CI: 0.212–0.787). In conclusion, individualizing the weekly training volume of research protocols provides greater gains in muscle CSA than prescribing a group standard RT volume.

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.

We aimed to investigate whether muscle fiber cross‐sectional area (fCSA) and associated molecular processes could be differently affected at the group and individual level by manipulating resistance training (RT) variables. Twenty resistance‐trained subjects had each leg randomly allocated to either a standard RT (RT‐CON: without specific variables manipulations) or a variable RT (RT‐VAR: manipulation of load, volume, muscle action, and rest interval at each RT session). Muscle fCSA, satellite cell (SC) pool, myonuclei content, and gene expression were assessed before and after training (chronic effect). Gene expression was assessed 24 h after the last training session (acute effect). RT‐CON and RT‐VAR increased fCSA and myonuclei domain in type I and II fibers after training (p < 0.05). SC and myonuclei content did not change for both conditions (p > 0.05). Pax‐7, MyoD, MMP‐2 and COL3A1 (chronic) and MGF, Pax‐7, and MMP‐9 (acute) increased similar for RT‐CON and RT‐VAR (p < 0.05). The increase in acute MyoG expression was significantly higher for the RT‐VAR than RT‐CON (p < 0.05). We found significant correlation between RT‐CON and RT‐VAR for the fCSA changes (r = 0.89). fCSA changes were also correlated to satellite cells (r = 0.42) and myonuclei (r = 0.50) changes. Heatmap analyses showed coupled changes in fCSA, SC, and myonuclei responses at the individual level, regardless of the RT protocol. The high between and low within‐subject variability regardless of RT protocol suggests that the intrinsic biological factors seem to be more important to explain the magnitude of fCSA gains in resistance‐trained subjects.

Background: Skeletal muscle adaptations are affected by resistance training (RT)-induced acute and chronic transcriptional responses. An under-explored gene target involved in mechanotransduction is the expression of the G protein-coupled receptor 56 (GPR56). However, studies investigating the acute and chronic effects of RT manipulations on GPR56 mRNA are scarce. Methods: Twenty subjects had each leg randomly assigned to a standard ((CON) no specific manipulation) or a variable RT (manipulations in load, volume, muscle action, and pause in a session-by-session fashion (VAR)). GPR56 mRNA expression was assessed before and after 16 training sessions (chronic effect) and 24 h after a 17th session (acute effect). Results: Acute GPR56 mRNA expression increased at 24 h (p < 0.01) without differences between CON and VAR (p > 0.05). No differences were found in GPR56 mRNA expression when comparing each VAR condition (load vs. sets vs. eccentric actions vs. pause) nor with CON at 24 h (p > 0.05). Chronic GPR56 mRNA expression increased at Post compared with Pre (p < 0.02) for VAR only, with a tendency (p = 0.058) toward higher expression for VAR as compared with CON. Conclusion: GPR56 mRNA expression is acutely and chronically modulated by RT. Additionally, chronic GPR56 mRNA expression is modulated by RT variable manipulations.