Dataset Information

Progression of volume load and muscular adaptation during resistance exercise.

ABSTRACT: Volume load (VL) is suggested to influence the adaptation of muscle to resistance exercise (RE). We sought to examine the independent association between total VL and hypertrophy and strength following a progressive RE protocol of equated sets and intensity. Total VL was calculated in 83 subjects (n = 43 males, n = 40 females; age = 25.12 ± 5.5 years) who participated in unilateral arm RE for 12 weeks. Subjects were tested for biceps muscle volume (MRI of the upper arm), isometric maximal voluntary contraction (MVC), and dynamic biceps strength (1RM), at baseline and following RE. Linear regression analysis revealed that sex was a significant predictor of hypertrophy (? = 0.06; p = 0.01) and strength (? = 0.14; p = 0.04), and that males had greater increases. Total VL was independently associated with hypertrophy only among females (? = 0.12; p < 0.01). For males, only baseline strength was (inversely) related to hypertrophy (? = -0.12; p = 0.04). VL was strongly associated with changes in 1RM strength improvement for both males (? = 0.66; p < 0.01) and females (? = 0.26; p = 0.02), but only related to MVC among females (? = 0.20; p = 0.02). Findings reveal that VL was independently associated with hypertrophy only among females. For males baseline strength was independently and inversely related to changes in muscle mass. Conversely, VL was found to be strongly associated with changes in 1RM for both males and females, controlling for age, body mass, and baseline strength.

SUBMITTER: Peterson MD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4215195 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Progression of volume load and muscular adaptation during resistance exercise.

Peterson Mark D MD Pistilli Emidio E Haff G Gregory GG Hoffman Eric P EP Gordon Paul M PM

European journal of applied physiology 20101127 6

Volume load (VL) is suggested to influence the adaptation of muscle to resistance exercise (RE). We sought to examine the independent association between total VL and hypertrophy and strength following a progressive RE protocol of equated sets and intensity. Total VL was calculated in 83 subjects (n = 43 males, n = 40 females; age = 25.12 ± 5.5 years) who participated in unilateral arm RE for 12 weeks. Subjects were tested for biceps muscle volume (MRI of the upper arm), isometric maximal volunt ...[more]

PMID: 21113614

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe intensity of barbell bench press exercise is generally prescribed as the load to be lifted for a specific number of repetitions; however, other factors (e.g., execution velocity) can affect bench press exercise intensity. Moreover, no study assessed whether load distribution (i.e., the distance between the disc stacks on the two sides of the barbell) affects exercise intensity. The present study aims to assess how different combinations of load, velocity, and barbell load distribution affect the number of repetitions to failure (REPfailure), and rating of perceived exertion (RPEfatigue) and number of repetitions (REPfatigue) at fatigue onset.MethodsTen males (age 23.3±1.8 years) performed bench press exercises to exhaustion using random combinations of three loads (50%, 65%, and 80% of 1 repetition maximum), three execution velocities (50%, 70%, and 90% of maximal concentric velocity), and two load distributions (narrow and wide). Three separate three-way repeated-measures ANOVAs were performed to assess the effect of load, velocity, and load distribution on REPfailure, RPEfatigue, and REPfatigue expressed as a percentage of REPfailure.ResultsREPfailure was affected by load (p<0.001), velocity (p<0.001), and distribution (p = 0.005). The interactions between load and velocity (p<0.001) and load and distribution (p = 0.004) showed a significant effect on REPfailure, whereas the interaction between velocity and distribution was not significant (p = 0.360). Overall, more REPfailure were performed using lower loads, higher velocities, and a wider distribution. RPEfatigue and REPfatigue were affected by load (p<0.001 and p = 0.007, respectively) and velocity (p<0.001 and p<0.001, respectively), and not by distribution (p = 0.510 and p = 0.571, respectively) or the two-way interaction effects. Overall, using higher loads yielded higher RPEfatigue but lower REPfatigue, while RPEfatigue and REPfatigue were higher when slower velocities were used.ConclusionThe current investigation shows that not only load but also velocity and barbell load distribution may influence bench press training volume and perceived exertion.

Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to summarise and analyse the current literature about what progression criteria are applied in loading exercise programmes in lower limb tendinopathies and their evidence and effectiveness.DesignSystematic review.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Scopus and PEDro were searched from inception to 24 September 2020. The inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials that included patients with midportion Achilles, patellar or gluteal tendinopathy; assessed function, pain or performance; included at least one group where progressive physical exercise was administered as monotherapy; included at least a control group. We excluded studies that included subjects with previous tendon surgical treatment; studies with control group that conducted a supplemented modality of the exercise performed in the intervention group. A narrative synthesis was conducted. Cohen's d and the percentage of change of main clinical and performance outcomes were obtained. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale.ResultsThirty studies that described progression criteria were included. Six types of criteria grouped in two categories were identified and included in a new classification proposal: pain as a primary criterion (evoking and avoid-pain based), and pain and symptom control as a secondary criterion (conditioning stages, fatigue-based, subjective perception and temporary linear increase). Most of the studies applied a pain-based criterion. Criteria based on conditioning stages were also commonly applied. Other criteria such as fatigue, a temporary linear increase, or the subjective perception of the patient's abilities were occasionally applied.ConclusionsThere is a predominant use of pain-based criteria, but the utilisation of these criteria is not supported by strong evidence. This review evidences the need for studies that compare the same exercise programme using different progression criteria. A new classification of the existing progression criteria is proposed based on the use of pain as the primary or secondary criterion.Prospero registration numberCRD42018110997.

Project description:BackgroundAutoregulation has emerged as a potentially beneficial resistance training paradigm to individualize and optimize programming; however, compared to standardized prescription, the effects of autoregulated load and volume prescription on muscular strength and hypertrophy adaptations are unclear. Our objective was to compare the effect of autoregulated load prescription (repetitions in reserve-based rating of perceived exertion and velocity-based training) to standardized load prescription (percentage-based training) on chronic one-repetition maximum (1RM) strength and cross-sectional area (CSA) hypertrophy adaptations in resistance-trained individuals. We also aimed to investigate the effect of volume autoregulation with velocity loss thresholds ≤ 25% compared to > 25% on 1RM strength and CSA hypertrophy.MethodsThis review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus was conducted. Mean differences (MD), 95% confidence intervals (CI), and standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated. Sub-analyses were performed as applicable.ResultsFifteen studies were included in the meta-analysis: six studies on load autoregulation and nine studies on volume autoregulation. No significant differences between autoregulated and standardized load prescription were demonstrated for 1RM strength (MD = 2.07, 95% CI - 0.32 to 4.46 kg, p = 0.09, SMD = 0.21). Velocity loss thresholds ≤ 25% demonstrated significantly greater 1RM strength (MD = 2.32, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.31 kg, p = 0.02, SMD = 0.23) and significantly lower CSA hypertrophy (MD = 0.61, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.16 cm2, p = 0.03, SMD = 0.28) than velocity loss thresholds > 25%. No significant differences between velocity loss thresholds > 25% and 20-25% were demonstrated for hypertrophy (MD = 0.36, 95% CI - 0.29 to 1.00 cm2, p = 0.28, SMD = 0.13); however, velocity loss thresholds > 25% demonstrated significantly greater hypertrophy compared to thresholds ≤ 20% (MD = 0.64, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.20 cm2, p = 0.03, SMD = 0.34).ConclusionsCollectively, autoregulated and standardized load prescription produced similar improvements in strength. When sets and relative intensity were equated, velocity loss thresholds ≤ 25% were superior for promoting strength possibly by minimizing acute neuromuscular fatigue while maximizing chronic neuromuscular adaptations, whereas velocity loss thresholds > 20-25% were superior for promoting hypertrophy by accumulating greater relative volume. Protocol Registration The original protocol was prospectively registered (CRD42021240506) with the PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews).

Project description:Although atrial function has prognostic significance in many cardiovascular conditions, changes during exercise have not previously been assessed. The aim of this study was to evaluate left atrial (LA) and right atrial (RA) volume and function during incremental exercise, both in normal individuals, healthy athletes, and in patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH).Fifteen healthy non-athletes, 15 athletes and 15 CTEPH patients underwent multi-slice real-time cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging at rest and during supine bicycle exercise with simultaneous invasive hemodynamic measurements.At rest, athletes had larger indexed maximal RA and LA volumes (iRAVmax, iLAVmax) than CTEPH patients and non-athletes, the latter two groups having similar values. CTEPH patients had lower RA and LA emptying functions (EmF) at rest. During exercise, RA volumes (maximum and minimum) increased in CTEPH patients, whilst decreasing in athletes and non-athletes (P?<?0.001). The exercise-induced change in iLAVmax was similar between groups, but iLAVmin did not decrease in CTEPH patients. Thus exercise-induced increases in RAEmF and LAEmF, as seen in normal physiology, were significantly impaired in CTEPH patients. At peak exercise, RA volumes (maximum and minimum) and EmF correlated strongly with RA pressure (R?=?0.70; P?=?0.005; R?=?0.83; P?<?0.001; R?=?-0.87; P?<?0.001). On multivariate analysis, peak exercise RAEmF and iLAVmin were independent predictors of VO2peak in CTEPH patients and together explained 72% of the variance in VO2peak (ß =0.581 and ß?=?-0.515, respectively).In normal physiology, RAEmF and LAEmF increase with exercise, whereas CTEPH patients have impaired LAEmF and RAEmF, which becomes more apparent during exercise. Therefore, the changes in atrial volumes and function during exercise enable a far better distinction between physiological and pathological atrial remodeling than resting measures of volumes which are prone to confounding factors (e.g. endurance training). Peak exercise RAEmF is a good marker of poor functional state in CTEPH patients.

Dataset Information

Progression of volume load and muscular adaptation during resistance exercise.

Publications

Progression of volume load and muscular adaptation during resistance exercise.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets