Abstract:Via processes within the spinal cord, one session of strength training of the elbow flexors increases net output from motoneurons projecting to the trained muscles. Likely mechanisms include increased efficacy of corticospinal-motoneuronal synapses or increased motoneuron excitability. However, the rate of force generation during training is not important for inducing these changes. A concomitant increase in motor cortical excitability is likely. These short-term changes may represent initial neural adaptation… Show more
“…It is possible that spinal inhibitory mechanisms contribute to this finding (McNeil et al, 2011a). Further, changes in excitability have commonly been found to occur at sub-cortical spinal levels with acute and early strength training (Aagaard, 2003; Nuzzo et al, 2016). Therefore the acute responses may reflect perturbations at subcortical levels.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In particular, adaptations to the central nervous system such as an increase in corticospinal excitability and release of short-interval intra-cortical inhibition (SICI) following 2- to 8-week strength training programs have been commonly observed (Deschenes et al, 1994; Kidgell et al, 2010; Latella et al, 2012; Weier et al, 2012; Hendy and Kidgell, 2013). While there is strong evidence to suggest that significant neural adaptations occur following multiple resistance training sessions (Kidgell et al, 2010; Latella et al, 2012), and acute changes in corticospinal excitability with sustained submaximal isometric exercise (Nuzzo et al, 2016), few studies have systematically investigated the acute central and peripheral neural responses associated with a single HST session.…”
Objective: The current understanding of acute neurophysiological responses to resistance training remains unclear. Therefore, we aimed to compare the time-course of acute corticospinal responses following a single-session heavy strength training (HST) of the biceps brachii (BB) muscle and provide quantifiable evidence based on the super-compensation model in an applied setting.Methods: Fourteen participants completed a counter-balanced, cross-over study that consisted of a single HST session (5 sets × 3 repetition maximum [RM]) of the BB and a control session (CON). Single- and paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was used to measure changes in motor-evoked potential (MEP) amplitude, intra-cortical facilitation (ICF), short-interval intra-cortical inhibition (SICI) and long-interval intra-cortical inhibition (LICI). Additionally, maximal muscle compound wave (MMAX) and maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) of the BB were taken. All measures were taken at baseline, immediately post and at 10, 20, 30 min and 1, 2, 6, 24, 48 and 72 h post-training.Results: A significant reduction in MEP amplitude was observed immediately post training (P = 0.001), while MVIC (P < 0.001) and MMAX (P = 0.047) were reduced for up to 30 min post-training. An increase in MVIC (p < 0.001) and MMAX (p = 0.047) was observed at 6 h, while an increase in MEP amplitude (p = 0.014) was only observed at 48 and 72 h. No changes in SICI, ICF and LICI were observed.Conclusion: Our results suggest that: (1) acute changes in corticospinal measures returned to baseline in a shorter timeframe than the current super-compensation model (24–48 h) and (2) changes in corticospinal excitability post-HST may be modulated “downstream” of the primary motor cortex (M1).
“…It is possible that spinal inhibitory mechanisms contribute to this finding (McNeil et al, 2011a). Further, changes in excitability have commonly been found to occur at sub-cortical spinal levels with acute and early strength training (Aagaard, 2003; Nuzzo et al, 2016). Therefore the acute responses may reflect perturbations at subcortical levels.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In particular, adaptations to the central nervous system such as an increase in corticospinal excitability and release of short-interval intra-cortical inhibition (SICI) following 2- to 8-week strength training programs have been commonly observed (Deschenes et al, 1994; Kidgell et al, 2010; Latella et al, 2012; Weier et al, 2012; Hendy and Kidgell, 2013). While there is strong evidence to suggest that significant neural adaptations occur following multiple resistance training sessions (Kidgell et al, 2010; Latella et al, 2012), and acute changes in corticospinal excitability with sustained submaximal isometric exercise (Nuzzo et al, 2016), few studies have systematically investigated the acute central and peripheral neural responses associated with a single HST session.…”
Objective: The current understanding of acute neurophysiological responses to resistance training remains unclear. Therefore, we aimed to compare the time-course of acute corticospinal responses following a single-session heavy strength training (HST) of the biceps brachii (BB) muscle and provide quantifiable evidence based on the super-compensation model in an applied setting.Methods: Fourteen participants completed a counter-balanced, cross-over study that consisted of a single HST session (5 sets × 3 repetition maximum [RM]) of the BB and a control session (CON). Single- and paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was used to measure changes in motor-evoked potential (MEP) amplitude, intra-cortical facilitation (ICF), short-interval intra-cortical inhibition (SICI) and long-interval intra-cortical inhibition (LICI). Additionally, maximal muscle compound wave (MMAX) and maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) of the BB were taken. All measures were taken at baseline, immediately post and at 10, 20, 30 min and 1, 2, 6, 24, 48 and 72 h post-training.Results: A significant reduction in MEP amplitude was observed immediately post training (P = 0.001), while MVIC (P < 0.001) and MMAX (P = 0.047) were reduced for up to 30 min post-training. An increase in MVIC (p < 0.001) and MMAX (p = 0.047) was observed at 6 h, while an increase in MEP amplitude (p = 0.014) was only observed at 48 and 72 h. No changes in SICI, ICF and LICI were observed.Conclusion: Our results suggest that: (1) acute changes in corticospinal measures returned to baseline in a shorter timeframe than the current super-compensation model (24–48 h) and (2) changes in corticospinal excitability post-HST may be modulated “downstream” of the primary motor cortex (M1).
“…Individuals were eligible to present to the laboratory if they were between the ages of 18 and 60; had no existing neurological impairments; had not suffered any serious head or neck injuries in the past; were not pregnant; and were not taking medications that may alter synaptic plasticity (eg, anti‐depressants). The target sample sizes of 14 were based on a priori calculations, which included the observed effect size from our previous experiment . In previous experiments, samples sizes of ~10 have been adequate to observe statistically significant changes in CMEPs after acute bouts of training …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Participants attended the laboratory for one session. In the session, they performed 12 sets of 8 isometric contractions of the elbow flexors . The forearm was pronated during all sets.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One approach is to examine evoked responses of the corticospinal pathway after a single bout of exercise. The rationale for this approach is that resistance exercise is a form of motor learning, and as such, evidence of “learning” may appear within a single bout . Previously, we have used this approach and discovered that 12 sets of high‐force isometric contractions of the elbow flexors increase responses to subcortical stimulation of corticospinal axons .…”
Cervicomedullary motor evoked potentials (CMEPs) in relaxed biceps brachii have been reported to facilitate after acute isometric exercise of the elbow flexors. This facilitation, which reflects either enhanced corticospinal transmission or increased motoneurone excitability, has only been documented in the limb posture used during exercise. In Experiment 1, we tested if these spinal changes "transfer" to a second posture. Fourteen individuals completed 12 sets of high-force isometric contractions of the elbow flexors with the forearm pronated. Before and after exercise, biceps CMEPs were acquired with the forearm either pronated or supinated. CMEPs in pronation and supination were facilitated after exercise, indicating transfer (57.5 ± 55.5% and 53.9 ± 54.9%, respectively; mean ± SD). In Experiment 2, we examined if exercise posture influences the effect that exercise has on CMEPs. A different sample of 14 individuals performed isometric exercise in 2 sessions. In one, exercise was performed in supination. In the other, exercise was performed in pronation. Exercise intensity and volume were the same as in Experiment 1, as were participant characteristics. CMEPs were unchanged after exercise in supination (13.6 ± 31.2%) and pronation (7.7 ± 41.5%). The absence of an effect differs from the finding of Experiment 1. Thus, effects of acute isometric resistance exercise on corticospinal transmission and/or motoneurone excitability are not as consistent as previously thought. When exercise induces this spinal change, the effect is not specific to the posture used for exercise. However, the change does not always occur, and the reasons for this remain unknown.
Biceps Mmax is similarly affected by 2 and 12 sets of strength training. The overall effect is minimal compared with ∼25% depression reported after similar training in a different arm posture. Thus, changes in Mmax appear more dependent on training posture than number of training sets. Muscle Nerve 54: 791-793, 2016.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.