Assessing differential responders and mean changes in muscle size, strength, and the crossover effect to 2 distinct resistance training protocols

The objective of this study was to determine differences in 2 distinct resistance training protocols and if true variability can be detected after accounting for random error. Individuals (n = 151) were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: (i) a traditional exercise group performing 4 sets to failure...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Applied physiology, nutrition, and metabolism nutrition, and metabolism, 2020-05, Vol.45 (5), p.463-470
Main Authors: Dankel, Scott J, Bell, Zachary W, Spitz, Robert W, Wong, Vickie, Viana, Ricardo B, Chatakondi, Raksha N, Buckner, Samuel L, Jessee, Matthew B, Mattocks, Kevin T, Mouser, J. Grant, Abe, Takashi, Loenneke, Jeremy P
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
1RM training
Adaptation, Physiological - physiology
Adolescent
Arm - physiology
Clinical trials
entraînement de 1RM
entraînement de la force
entraînement personnalisé
essai contrôlé randomisé
Female
haltérophilie
Humans
individual responders
Male
Muscle Strength - physiology
Muscle, Skeletal - physiology
Nutrition
personalized training
randomized controlled trial
Resistance Training - methods
répondeurs individuels
Strength training
variability
variabilité
weight lifting
Weight training
Young Adult
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The objective of this study was to determine differences in 2 distinct resistance training protocols and if true variability can be detected after accounting for random error. Individuals (n = 151) were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: (i) a traditional exercise group performing 4 sets to failure; (ii) a group performing a 1-repetition maximum (1RM) test; and (iii) a time-matched nonexercise control group. Both exercise groups performed 18 sessions of elbow flexion exercise over 6 weeks. While both training groups increased 1RM strength similarly (∼2.4 kg), true variability was only present in the traditional exercise group (true variability = 1.80 kg). Only the 1RM group increased untrained arm 1RM strength (1.5 kg), while only the traditional group increased ultrasound measured muscle thickness (∼0.23 cm). Despite these mean increases, no true variability was present for untrained arm strength or muscle hypertrophy in either training group. In conclusion, these findings demonstrate the importance of taking into consideration the magnitude of random error when classifying differential responders, as many studies may be classifying high and low responders as those who have the greatest amount of random error present. Additionally, our mean results demonstrate that strength is largely driven by task specificity, and the crossover effect of strength may be load dependent. Novelty Many studies examining differential responders to exercise do not account for random error. True variability was present in 1RM strength gains, but the variability in muscle hypertrophy and isokinetic strength changes could not be distinguished from random error. The crossover effect of strength may differ based on the protocol employed.
ISSN:1715-5312
1715-5320
DOI:10.1139/apnm-2019-0470