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.

Muscle Hypertrophy Is Affected by Volume Load Progression Models.

ABSTRACT: Nóbrega, SR, Scarpelli, MC, Barcelos, C, Chaves, TS, and Libardi, CA. Muscle hypertrophy is affected by volume load progression models. J Strength Cond Res 37(1): 62-67, 2023-This exploratory secondary data analysis compared the effects of a percentage of 1 repetition maximum (%1RM) and a repetition zone (RM Zone) progression model carried out to muscle failure on volume load progression (VLPro), muscle strength, and cross-sectional area (CSA). The sample comprised 24 untrained men separated in 2 groups: %1RM (n = 14) and RM Zone (n = 10). Muscle CSA and muscle strength (1RM) were assessed before and after 24 training sessions, and an analysis of covariance was used. Volume load progression and accumulated VL (VLAccu) were compared between groups. The relationships between VLProg, VLAccu, 1RM, and CSA increases were also investigated. A significance level of p ≤ 0.05 was adopted for all statistical procedures. Volume load progression was greater for RM Zone compared with %1RM (2.30 ± 0.58% per session vs. 1.01 ± 0.55% per session; p < 0.05). Significant relationships were found between 1RM and VLProg (p < 0.05) and CSA and VLProg (p < 0.05). No between-group differences were found for VLAccu (p > 0.05). Analysis of covariance revealed no between-group differences for 1RM absolute (p < 0.05) or relative changes (p < 0.05). However, post hoc testing revealed greater absolute and relative changes in CSA for the RM Zone group compared with the %1RM group (p < 0.001). In conclusion, RM Zone resulted in a greater VLPro rate and muscle CSA gains compared with %1RM, with no differences in VLAccu and muscle strength gains between progression models.

Effect of resistance training to muscle failure vs non-failure on strength, hypertrophy and muscle architecture in trained individuals.

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.