Androgen receptor markers do not differ between nonresponders and responders to resistance training-induced muscle hypertrophy.

The aim of this study was to investigate whether baseline values and acute and chronic changes in androgen receptors (AR) markers, including total AR, cytoplasmic (cAR), and nuclear (nAR) fractions, as well as DNA-binding activity (AR-DNA), are involved in muscle hypertrophy responsiveness by comparing young nonresponder and responder individuals. After 10 wk of resistance training (RT), participants were identified as nonresponders using two typical errors (TE) obtained through two muscle cross-sectional area (mCSA) ultrasound measurements (2 × TE; 4.94%), and the highest responders within our sample were numerically matched. Muscle biopsies were performed at baseline, 24 h after the first RT session (acute responses), and 96 h after the last session (chronic responses). AR, cAR, and nAR were analyzed using Western blotting, and AR-DNA was analyzed using an ELISA-oligonucleotide assay. Twelve participants were identified as nonresponders (ΔmCSA: -1.32%) and 12 as responders (ΔmCSA: 21.35%). There were no baseline differences between groups in mCSA, AR, cAR, nAR, or AR-DNA (P > 0.05). For acute responses, there was a significant difference between nonresponders (+19.5%) and responders (-14.4%) in AR-DNA [effect size (ES) = -1.39; 95% confidence interval (CI): -2.53 to -0.16; P = 0.015]. There were no acute between-group differences in any other AR markers (P > 0.05). No significant differences between groups were observed in chronic responses across any AR markers (P > 0.05). Nonresponders and responders presented similar baseline, acute, and chronic results for the majority of the AR markers. Thus, our findings do not support the influence of AR markers on muscle hypertrophy responsiveness to RT in untrained individuals.NEW & NOTEWORTHY We explored, for the first time, the influence of androgen receptor (AR) through the separation of cytoplasmic and nuclear cell fractions [i.e., cytoplasmic androgen receptor (cAR), nuclear androgen receptor (nAR), and androgen receptor DNA-binding activity (AR-DNA)] on muscle hypertrophy responsiveness to resistance training. The absence of muscle hypertrophy in naïve individuals does not seem to be explained by baseline values, and acute or chronic changes in AR markers.

Resistance training-induced changes in muscle proteolysis and extracellular matrix remodeling biomarkers in the untrained and trained states.

PURPOSE: Resistance training (RT) induces muscle growth at varying rates across RT phases, and evidence suggests that the muscle-molecular responses to training bouts become refined or attenuated in the trained state. This study examined how proteolysis-related biomarkers and extracellular matrix (ECM) remodeling factors respond to a bout of RT in the untrained (UT) and trained (T) state. METHODS: Participants (19 women and 19 men) underwent 10 weeks of RT. Biopsies of vastus lateralis were collected before and after (24 h) the first (UT) and last (T) sessions. Vastus lateralis cross-sectional area (CSA) was assessed before and after the experimental period. RESULTS: There were increases in muscle and type II fiber CSAs. In both the UT and T states, calpain activity was upregulated and calpain-1/-2 protein expression was downregulated from Pre to 24 h. Calpain-2 was higher in the T state. Proteasome activity and 20S proteasome protein expression were upregulated from Pre to 24 h in both the UT and T. However, proteasome activity levels were lower in the T state. The expression of poly-ubiquitinated proteins was unchanged. MMP activity was downregulated, and MMP-9 protein expression was elevated from Pre to 24 h in UT and T. Although MMP-14 protein expression was acutely unchanged, this marker was lower in T state. TIMP-1 protein levels were reduced Pre to 24 h in UT and T, while TIMP-2 protein levels were unchanged. CONCLUSION: Our results are the first to show that RT does not attenuate the acute-induced response of proteolysis and ECM remodeling-related biomarkers.

Effects of low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction on muscle fiber myofibrillar and extracellular area.

Blood flow restriction applied during low-load resistance training (LL-BFR) induces a similar increase in the cross-sectional area of muscle fibers (fCSA) compared to traditional high-load resistance training (HL-RT). However, it is unclear whether LL-BFR leads to differential changes in myofibrillar spacing in muscle fibers and/or extracellular area compared to HL-RT. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate whether the hypertrophy of type I and II fibers induced by LL-BFR or HL-RT is accompanied by differential changes in myofibrillar and non-myofibrillar areas. In addition, we examined if extracellular spacing was differentially affected between these two training protocols. Twenty recreationally active participants were assigned to LL-BFR or HL-RT groups and underwent a 6-week training program. Muscle biopsies were taken before and after the training period. The fCSA of type I and II fibers, the area occupied by myofibrillar and non-myofibrillar components, and extracellular spacing were analyzed using immunohistochemistry techniques. Despite the significant increase in type II and mean (type I + II) fCSA (p < 0.05), there were no significant changes in the proportionality of the myofibrillar and non-myofibrillar areas [∼86% and ∼14%, respectively (p > 0.05)], indicating that initial adaptations to LL-BFR are primarily characterized by conventional hypertrophy rather than disproportionate non-myofibrillar expansion. Additionally, extracellular spacing was not significantly altered between protocols. In summary, our study reveals that LL-BFR, like HL-RT, induces skeletal muscle hypertrophy with proportional changes in the areas occupied by myofibrillar, non-myofibrillar, and extracellular components.