Skeletal muscle is highly adaptable and has consistently been shown to morphologically respond to exercise training. Skeletal muscle growth during periods of resistance training has traditionally been referred to as skeletal muscle hypertrophy, and this manifests as increases in muscle mass, muscle thickness, muscle area, muscle volume, and muscle fiber cross-sectional area (fCSA). Delicate electron microscopy and biochemical techniques have also been used to demonstrate that resistance exercise promotes ultrastructural adaptations within muscle fibers. Decades of research in this area of exercise physiology have promulgated a widespread hypothetical model of training-induced skeletal muscle hypertrophy; specifically, fCSA increases are accompanied by proportional increases in myofibrillar protein, leading to an expansion in the number of sarcomeres in parallel and/or an increase in myofibril number. However, there is ample evidence to suggest that myofibrillar protein concentration may be diluted through sarcoplasmic expansion as fCSA increases occur. Furthermore, and perhaps more problematic, are numerous investigations reporting that pre-to-post training change scores in macroscopic, microscopic, and molecular variables supporting this model are often poorly associated with one another. The current review first provides a brief description of skeletal muscle composition and structure. We then provide a historical overview of muscle hypertrophy assessment. Next, current-day methods commonly used to assess skeletal muscle hypertrophy at the biochemical, ultramicroscopic, microscopic, macroscopic, and whole-body levels in response to training are examined. Data from our laboratory, and others, demonstrating correlations (or the lack thereof) between these variables are also presented, and reasons for comparative discrepancies are discussed with particular attention directed to studies reporting ultrastructural and muscle protein concentration alterations. Finally, we critically evaluate the biological construct of skeletal muscle hypertrophy, propose potential operational definitions, and provide suggestions for consideration in hopes of guiding future research in this area.

The Forkhead box O (FoxO) transcription factors are activated, and necessary for the muscle atrophy, in several pathophysiological conditions, including muscle disuse and cancer cachexia. However, the mechanisms that lead to FoxO activation are not well defined. Recent data from our laboratory and others indicate that the activity of FoxO is repressed under basal conditions via reversible lysine acetylation, which becomes compromised during catabolic conditions. Therefore, we aimed to determine how histone deacetylase (HDAC) proteins contribute to activation of FoxO and induction of the muscle atrophy program. Through the use of various pharmacological inhibitors to block HDAC activity, we demonstrate that class I HDACs are key regulators of FoxO and the muscle-atrophy program during both nutrient deprivation and skeletal muscle disuse. Furthermore, we demonstrate, through the use of wild-type and dominant-negative HDAC1 expression plasmids, that HDAC1 is sufficient to activate FoxO and induce muscle fiber atrophy in vivo and is necessary for the atrophy of muscle fibers that is associated with muscle disuse. The ability of HDAC1 to cause muscle atrophy required its deacetylase activity and was linked to the induction of several atrophy genes by HDAC1, including atrogin-1, which required deacetylation of FoxO3a. Moreover, pharmacological inhibition of class I HDACs during muscle disuse, using MS-275, significantly attenuated both disuse muscle fiber atrophy and contractile dysfunction. Together, these data solidify the importance of class I HDACs in the muscle atrophy program and indicate that class I HDAC inhibitors are feasible countermeasures to impede muscle atrophy and weakness.

Cancer cachexia is characterized by a continuous loss of locomotor skeletal muscle mass, which causes profound muscle weakness. If this atrophy and weakness also occurs in diaphragm muscle, it could lead to respiratory failure, which is a major cause of death in patients with cancer. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to determine whether colon-26 (C-26) cancer cachexia causes diaphragm muscle fiber atrophy and weakness and compromises ventilation. All diaphragm muscle fiber types were significantly atrophied in C-26 mice compared to controls, and the atrophy-related genes, atrogin-1 and MuRF1, significantly increased. Maximum isometric specific force of diaphragm strips, absolute maximal calcium activated force, and maximal specific calcium-activated force of permeabilized diaphragm fibers were all significantly decreased in C-26 mice compared to controls. Further, isotonic contractile properties of the diaphragm were affected to an even greater extent than isometric function. Ventilation measurements demonstrated that C-26 mice have a significantly lower tidal volume compared to controls under basal conditions and, unlike control mice, an inability to increase breathing frequency, tidal volume, and, thus, minute ventilation in response to a respiratory challenge. These data demonstrate that C-26 cancer cachexia causes profound respiratory muscle atrophy and weakness and ventilatory dysfunction.

Background: Evidence from cachectic cancer patients and animal models of cancer cachexia supports the involvement of Forkhead box O (FoxO) transcription factors in driving cancer-induced skeletal muscle wasting. However, the genome-wide gene networks and associated biological processes regulated by FoxO during cancer cachexia are unknown. We hypothesize that FoxO is a central upstream regulator of diverse gene networks in skeletal muscle during cancer that may act coordinately to promote the wasting phenotype. Methods: To inhibit endogenous FoxO DNA-binding, we transduced limb and diaphragm muscles of mice with AAV9 containing the cDNA for a dominant negative (d.n.) FoxO protein (or GFP control). The d.n.FoxO construct consists of only the FoxO3a DNA-binding domain that is highly homologous to that of FoxO1 and FoxO4, and which outcompetes and blocks endogenous FoxO DNA binding. Mice were subsequently inoculated with Colon-26 (C26) cells and muscles harvested 26 days later.

Roberts, BM, Nuckols, G, and Krieger, JW. Sex differences in resistance training: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 34(5): 1448–1460, 2020—The purpose of this study was to determine whether there are different responses to resistance training for strength or hypertrophy in young to middle-aged males and females using the same resistance training protocol. The protocol was pre-registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018094276). Meta-analyses were performed using robust variance random effects modeling for multilevel data structures, with adjustments for small samples using package robumeta in R. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. The analysis of hypertrophy comprised 12 outcomes from 10 studies with no significant difference between males and females (effect size [ES] = 0.07 ± 0.06; P = 0.31; I2 = 0). The analysis of upper-body strength comprised 19 outcomes from 17 studies with a significant effect favoring females (ES = -0.60 ± 0.16; P = 0.002; I2 = 72.1). The analysis of lower-body strength comprised 23 outcomes from 23 studies with no significant difference between sexes (ES = −0.21 ± 0.16; P = 0.20; I2 = 74.7). We found that males and females adapted to resistance training with similar effect sizes for hypertrophy and lower-body strength, but females had a larger effect for relative upper-body strength. Given the moderate effect size favoring females in the upper-body strength analysis, it is possible that untrained females display a higher capacity to increase upper-body strength than males. Further research is required to clarify why this difference occurs only in the upper body and whether the differences are due to neural, muscular, motor learning, or are an artifact of the short duration of studies included.