We concluded that LIR was able to induce gains in 1RM and quadriceps CSA similar to those observed after traditional HI. These responses may be related to the concomitant decrease in MSTN and increase in FLST isoforms, GASP-1, and SMAD-7 mRNA gene expression.

No abstract

Key pointsr Skeletal muscle hypertrophy is one of the main outcomes from resistance training (RT), but how it is modulated throughout training is still unknown.r We show that changes in myofibrillar protein synthesis (MyoPS) after an initial resistance exercise (RE) bout in the first week of RT (T1) were greater than those seen post-RE at the third (T2) and tenth week (T3) of RT, with values being similar at T2 and T3.r Muscle damage (Z-band streaming) was the highest during post-RE recovery at T1, lower at T2 and minimal at T3.r When muscle damage was the highest, so was the integrated MyoPS (at T1), but neither were related to hypertrophy; however, integrated MyoPS at T2 and T3 were correlated with hypertrophy.r We conclude that muscle hypertrophy is the result of accumulated intermittent increases in MyoPS mainly after a progressive attenuation of muscle damage.Abstract Skeletal muscle hypertrophy is one of the main outcomes of resistance training (RT), but how hypertrophy is modulated and the mechanisms regulating it are still unknown. To investigate how muscle hypertrophy is modulated through RT, we measured day-to-day integrated myofibrillar protein synthesis (MyoPS) using deuterium oxide and assessed muscle damage at the beginning (T1), at 3 weeks (T2) and at 10 weeks of RT (T3). Ten young men (27 (1) years, mean (SEM)) had muscle biopsies (vastus lateralis) taken to measure integrated MyoPS and muscle damage (Z-band streaming and indirect parameters) before, and 24 h and 48 h post resistance exercise (post-RE) at T1, T2 and T3. Fibre cross-sectional area (fCSA) was evaluated using biopsies at T1, T2 and T3. Increases in fCSA were observed only at T3 (P = 0.017). Changes in MyoPS post-RE at T1, T2 and T3 were greater at T1 (P < 0.03) than at T2 and T3 (similar values between T2 and T3). Muscle damage was the highest during post-RE recovery at T1, attenuated at T2 and further attenuated at T3. The change in MyoPS post-RE at both T2 and T3, but not at T1, was strongly correlated (r 0.9, P < 0.04) with muscle hypertrophy. Initial MyoPS response post-RE in an RT programme is not directed to support muscle hypertrophy, coinciding with the greatest muscle damage. However, integrated MyoPS is quickly 'refined' by 3 weeks of RT, and is related to muscle hypertrophy. We conclude that muscle hypertrophy is the result of accumulated intermittent changes in MyoPS post-RE in RT, which coincides with progressive attenuation of muscle damage.

High-intensity resistance training (HRT) has been recommended to offset age-related loss in muscle strength and mass. However, part of the elderly population is often unable to exercise at high intensities. Alternatively, low-intensity resistance training with blood flow restriction (LRT-BFR) has emerged. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of LRT-BFR and HRT on quadriceps muscle strength and mass in elderly. Twenty-three elderly individuals, 14 men and 9 women (age, 64.04 ± 3.81 years; weight, 72.55 ± 16.52 kg; height, 163 ± 11 cm), undertook 12 weeks of training. Subjects were ranked according to their pretraining quadriceps cross-sectional area (CSA) values and then randomly allocated into one of the following groups: (a) control group, (b) HRT: 4 × 10 repetitions, 70-80% one repetition maximum (1RM), and (c) LRT-BFR: 4 sets (1 × 30 and 3 × 15 repetitions), 20-30% 1RM. The occlusion pressure was set at 50% of maximum tibial arterial pressure and sustained during the whole training session. Leg press 1RM and quadriceps CSA were evaluated at before and after training. A mixed-model analysis was performed, and the significance level was set at p ≤ 0.05. Both training regimes were effective in increasing pre- to post-training leg press 1RM (HRT: ∼54%, p < 0.001; LRT-BFR: ∼17%, p = 0.067) and quadriceps CSA (HRT: 7.9%, p < 0.001; LRT-BFR: 6.6%, p < 0.001); however, HRT seems to induce greater strength gains. In summary, LRT-BFR constitutes an important surrogate approach to HRT as an effective training method to induce gains in muscle strength and mass in elderly.

Among sport conditioning coaches, there is considerable discussion regarding the efficiency of training methods that improve lower-body power. Heavy resistance training combined with vertical jump (VJ) training is a well-established training method; however, there is a lack of information about its combination with Olympic weightlifting (WL) exercises. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the short-term effects of heavy resistance training combined with either the VJ or WL program. Thirty-two young men were assigned to 3 groups: WL = 12, VJ = 12, and control = 8. These 32 men participated in an 8-week training study. The WL training program consisted of 3 x 6RM high pull, 4 x 4RM power clean, and 4 x 4RM clean and jerk. The VJ training program consisted of 6 x 4 double-leg hurdle hops, 4 x 4 alternated single-leg hurdle hops, 4 x 4 single-leg hurdle hops, and 4 x 4 40-cm drop jumps. Additionally, both groups performed 4 x 6RM half-squat exercises. Training volume was increased after 4 weeks. Pretesting and posttesting consisted of squat jump (SJ) and countermovement jump (CMJ) tests, 10- and 30-m sprint speeds, an agility test, a half-squat 1RM, and a clean-and-jerk 1RM (only for WL). The WL program significantly increased the 10-m sprint speed (p < 0.05). Both groups, WL and VJ, increased CMJ (p < 0.05), but groups using the WL program increased more than those using the VJ program. On the other hand, the group using the VJ program increased its 1RM half-squat strength more than the WL group (47.8 and 43.7%, respectively). Only the WL group improved in the SJ (9.5%). There were no significant changes in the control group. In conclusion, Olympic WL exercises seemed to produce broader performance improvements than VJ exercises in physically active subjects.