CP and DS systems do not promote greater gains in strength, muscle hypertrophy and changes in muscle architecture compared to traditional resistance training.

The manipulation of resistance training (RT) variables is used among athletes, recreational exercisers, and compromised populations (e.g., elderly) attempting to potentiate muscle hypertrophy. However, it is unknown whether an individual’s inherent predisposition dictates the RT-induced muscle hypertrophic response. Resistance-trained young [26 (3) y] men ( n = 20) performed 8 wk unilateral RT (2 times/wk), with 1 leg randomly assigned to a standard progressive RT [control (CON)] and the contralateral leg to a variable RT (VAR; modulating exercise load, volume, contraction type, and interset rest interval). The VAR leg completed all 4 RT variations every 2 wk. Bilateral vastus lateralis cross-sectional area (CSA) was measured, pre- and post-RT and acute integrated myofibrillar protein synthesis (MyoPS) rates were assessed at rest and over 48 h following the final RT session. Muscle CSA increase was similar between CON and VAR ( P > 0.05), despite higher total training volume (TTV) in VAR ( P < 0.05). The 0–48-h integrated MyoPS increase postexercise was slightly greater for VAR than CON ( P < 0.05). All participants were considered “responders” to RT, although none benefited to a greater extent from a specific protocol. Between-subjects variability (MyoPS, 3.30%; CSA, 37.8%) was 40-fold greater than the intrasubject (between legs) variability (MyoPS, 0.08%; CSA, 0.9%). The higher TTV and greater MyoPS response in VAR did not translate to a greater muscle hypertrophic response. Manipulating common RT variables elicited similar muscle hypertrophy than a standard progressive RT program in trained young men. Intrinsic individual factors are key determinants of the MyoPS and change in muscle CSA compared with extrinsic manipulation of common RT variables. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Systematically manipulating resistance training (RT) variables during RT augments the stimulation of myofibrillar protein synthesis (MyoPS) and training volume but fails to potentiate muscle hypertrophy compared with a standard progressive RT. Any modest further MyoPS increase and higher training volumes do not reflect in a greater hypertrophic response. Between-subject variability was 40-fold greater than the variability promoted by extrinsic manipulation of RT variables, indicating that individual intrinsic factors are stronger determinants of the hypertrophic response.

Low-intensity resistance exercise with blood-flow restriction (BFR) promotes similar adaptations to high-intensity resistance exercise (HI-RE). Interestingly, BFR has been demonstrated to be effective for a wide range of occlusion pressures. However, the occlusion pressure magnitude may alter the psychophysiological stress related to BFR as measured by rating of perceived exertion scale (RPE) and rating of pain. We aimed to compare the RPE and pain levels across different magnitudes of occlusion pressures, promoting new knowledge regarding occlusion pressure on stress related to BFR. All BFR protocols ranging between 40% and 80% of total arterial occlusion (BFR40, BFR50, BFR60, BFR70, and BFR80) were compared to HI-RE in 12 participants using a randomized and crossover design 72 h apart. BFR protocols and HI-RE were performed with 30% and 80% of one-repetition maximum (1RM) test value, respectively. RPE and pain levels were measured before exercise and immediately after each set. BFR protocols (i.e., BFR40 and BFR50) presented overall lower RPE response compared to higher-pressure BFR (i.e., BFR70 and BFR80) and HI-RE conditions. For pain levels, low-pressure BFRs (i.e., BFR40 and BFR50), and HI-RE showed lower values than high-pressure BFR protocols (i.e., BFR60, BFR70, and BFR80). In conclusion, low-pressure BFR protocols promote lower RPE and pain compared to high-pressure BFR protocols (between 60% and 80% of occlusion pressure), when total training volume (TTV) is equalized. In addition, HI-RE promotes similar levels of pain, but higher RPE than low-pressure BFR, probably due to the higher TTV.

No abstract

No abstract