Premium
Do exercise‐induced increases in muscle size contribute to strength in resistance‐trained individuals?
Author(s) -
Buckner Samuel L.,
Yitzchaki Noam,
Kataoka Ryo,
Vasenina Ecaterina,
Zhu Wenyuan G.,
Kuehne Tayla E.,
Loenneke Jeremy P.
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
clinical physiology and functional imaging
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.608
H-Index - 67
eISSN - 1475-097X
pISSN - 1475-0961
DOI - 10.1111/cpf.12699
Subject(s) - resistance training , medicine , one repetition maximum , muscle strength , strength training , biceps , muscle mass , leg press , physical therapy , zoology , physical medicine and rehabilitation , biology
Aim Previous work in non‐resistance‐trained individuals has found that an increase in muscle size has no additive effect on changes in strength. However, it is thought that muscle growth is of increased importance for resistance‐trained individuals. Purpose Experiment 1: To examine changes in muscle thickness (MT) and one repetition maximum (1RM) strength following 8 weeks of bi‐weekly 1RM practice or traditional training. Experiment 2: To determine whether increasing muscle size increases strength potential when followed by 4 weeks of 1RM training. Methods Participants performed biceps curls for 8 weeks (Experiment 1). One arm performed 4 sets of as many repetitions as possible with approximately 70% of 1RM (TRAD), and the other arm performed a single 1RM. For experiment 2, both arms trained for muscle size and strength. Results Experiment 1 (n = 25) : for MT, the posterior probabilities favoured the hypothesis that MT changed more in the TRAD condition [mean difference: 50% site 0.15 (−0.09, 0.21) cm; 60% site 0.14 (0.06, 0.23) cm; 70% site 0.17 (0.10, 0.23) cm]. For 1RM strength, each condition changed equivalently. Experiment 2 (n = 18) : for MT, the posterior probabilities favoured the hypothesis that MT changed similarly between conditions following a 4‐week strength phase. For changes in 1RM strength, the evidence favoured neither hypothesis (i.e. null vs. alternative). Of note, the mean difference between conditions was small [0.72 (4.3) kg]. Conclusions 1RM training produces similar increases in strength as traditional training. Experiment 2 suggests that increases in muscle mass may not increase the ‘potential’ for strength gain.