Volume Load Rather Than Resting Interval Influences Muscle Hypertrophy During High-Intensity Resistance Training.

ABSTRACT: Longo, AR, Silva-Batista, C, Pedroso, K, de Salles Painelli, V, Lasevicius, T, Schoenfeld, BJ, Aihara, AY, de Almeida Peres, B, Tricoli, V, and Teixeira, EL. Volume load rather than resting interval influences muscle hypertrophy during high-intensity resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 36(6): 1554-1559, 2022-Interset rest interval has been proposed as an important variable for inducing muscle mass and strength increases during resistance training. However, its influence remains unclear, especially when protocols with differing intervals have equalized volume. We aimed to compare the effects of long (LI) vs. short rest interval (SI) on muscle strength (one repetition maximum [1RM]) and quadriceps cross-sectional area (QCSA), with or without equalized volume load (VL). Twenty-eight subjects trained twice a week for 10 weeks. Each subject's leg was allocated to 1 of 4 unilateral knee extension protocols: LI, SI, SI with VL -matched by LI (VLI-SI), and LI with VL-matched by SI (VSI-LI). A 3-minute rest interval was afforded in LI and VSI-LI protocols, while SI and VLI-SI employed a 1-minute interval. All subjects trained with a load corresponding to 80% 1RM. One repetition maximum and QCSA were measured before and after training. All protocols significantly increased 1RM values in post-training (p < 0.0001; LI: 27.6%, effect size [ES] = 0.90; VLI-SI: 31.1%, ES = 1.00; SI: 26.5%, ES = 1.11; and VSI-LI: 31.2%, ES = 1.28), with no significant differences between protocols. Quadriceps cross-sectional area increased significantly for all protocols in post-training (p < 0.0001). However, absolute changes in QCSA were significantly greater in LI and VLI-SI (13.1%, ES: 0.66 and 12.9%, ES: 0.63) than SI and VSI-LI (6.8%, ES: 0.38 and 6.6%, ES: 0.37) (both comparisons, p < 0.05). These data suggest that maintenance of high loads is more important for strength increases, while a greater VL plays a primary role for hypertrophy, regardless of interset rest interval.

Blood Flow Restriction Does Not Attenuate Short-Term Detraining-Induced Muscle Size and Strength Losses After Resistance Training With Blood Flow Restriction.

ABSTRACT: Teixeira, EL, de Salles Painelli, V, Silva-Batista, C, de Souza Barros, T, Longo, AR, Lasevicius, T, Schoenfeld, BJ, Aihara, AY, and de Almeida Peres, B. Blood flow restriction does not attenuate short-term detraining-induced muscle size and strength losses after resistance training with blood flow restriction. J Strength Cond Res 35(8): 2082-2088, 2021-After a short-term resistance training with blood flow restriction (BFR), we investigated the effects of 12 days of detraining (DET), without an exercise stimulus, on quadriceps cross-sectional area (QCSA) and muscle strength (1 repetition maximum [1RM]), with 1 leg receiving daily intermittent BFR during DET vs. the same nonexercise condition without BFR (CON) in the contralateral leg. Both subjects' legs were evaluated for QCSA and 1RM before (PRE) and after (POST) both legs being unilaterally submitted to 3 weeks (4 days per week) of low-load (3 sets of 15 repetitions, 30% 1RM) resistance training with BFR. The DET period started immediately after POST, where each leg was randomly submitted to a daily intermittent BFR protocol or CON, without any associated exercise stimulus. Quadriceps cross-sectional area and 1RM were reassessed after DET. Both legs at CON and BFR conditions increased QCSA (6.3 and 6.8%, respectively; both p < 0.0001) and 1RM (9.5 and 10.1%, respectively; both p < 0.05) from PRE to POST. Both legs at CON and BFR conditions reduced QCSA (-4.6 and 4.9%, respectively; both p < 0.0001) and 1RM (-9.0 and -8.2%, respectively; both p < 0.05) from POST to DET, with no significant differences between conditions (p > 0.05). We conclude that muscle strength and hypertrophy gains obtained in 3 weeks of resistance training with BFR are not maintained after 12 days of DET. Moreover, the application of BFR, without an associated exercise stimulus, does not attenuate such losses.

Varying the Order of Combinations of Single- and Multi-Joint Exercises Differentially Affects Resistance Training Adaptations.

Brandão, L, de Salles Painelli, V, Lasevicius, T, Silva-Batista, C, Brendon, H, Schoenfeld, BJ, Aihara, AY, Cardoso, FN, de Almeida Peres, B, and Teixeira, EL. Varying the order of combinations of single- and multi-joint exercises differentially affects resistance training adaptations. J Strength Cond Res 34(5): 1254-1263, 2020-Our study aimed to compare the effects of multi-joint (MJ) and single-joint (SJ) exercises, either isolated or in combination, and in different orders, on cross-sectional area (CSA) of the pectoralis major (PM) and different heads of the triceps brachii (TB), as well as on the one-repetition maximum (1-RM) in the bench press and lying barbell triceps press. Forty-three young men were randomly assigned to one of 4 possible RT protocols: barbell bench press plus lying barbell triceps press (MJ + SJ, n = 12); lying barbell triceps press plus barbell bench press (SJ + MJ, n = 10); barbell bench press (MJ, n = 10); or lying barbell triceps press (SJ, n = 11). Results showed significant within-group increases in 1-RM bench press for MJ, MJ + SJ, and SJ + MJ but not for SJ. Conversely, significantly greater within-group increases in elbow extension 1-RM were noted for SJ, MJ + SJ, and SJ + MJ but not for MJ. Significantly greater increases in PM CSA were observed for MJ, MJ + SJ, and SJ + MJ compared with SJ. Significant increases in TB CSA were noted for SJ, MJ + SJ, and SJ + MJ, but not for MJ, without observed between-group differences. Individual analysis of TB heads showed significantly greater CSA increases in the lateral head for MJ, MJ + SJ, and SJ + MJ compared with SJ. Alternatively, significantly greater increases in the long head were observed for SJ, MJ + SJ, and SJ + MJ compared with MJ. CSA increases for the medial head were statistically similar between conditions. Our findings indicate that muscular adaptations are differentially affected by performance of MJ and SJ exercises.

Differential muscle hypertrophy and edema responses between high-load and low-load exercise with blood flow restriction.

We sought to determine whether early increases in cross-sectional area (CSA) of different muscles composing the quadriceps with low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) were mainly driven by muscle hypertrophy or by edema-induced swelling. We also compared these changes to those promoted by high-load resistance training (HL-RT). In a randomized within-subject design, fifteen healthy, untrained men were submitted to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for CSA and edema-induced muscle swelling assessment (fast spin echo inversion recovery, FSE-STIR). MRI was performed in LL-BFR and HL-RT at baseline (W0) and after 3 weeks (W3), with a further measure after 6 weeks (W6) for HL-RT. Participants were also assessed at these time points for indirect muscle damage markers (range of motion, ROM; muscle soreness, SOR). CSA significantly increased for all the quadriceps muscles, for both LL-BFR and HL-RT at W3 (all P < .05) compared to W0. However, FSE-STIR was elevated at W3 for all the quadriceps muscles only for HL-RT (all P < .0001), not LL-BFR (all P > .05). Significant increases and decreases were shown in SOR and ROM, respectively, for HL-RT in W3 compared to W0 (both P < .05), while these changes were mitigated at W6 compared to W0 (both P > .05). No significant changes in SOR or ROM were demonstrated for LL-BFR across the study. Early increases in CSA with LL-BFR seem to occur without the presence of muscle edema, whereas initial gains obtained by HL-RT were influenced by muscle edema, in addition to muscle hypertrophy.