Changes in agonist neural drive, hypertrophy and pre-training strength all contribute to the individual strength gains after resistance training

Abstract

(r = 0.461, P = 0.014), and pre-training MVT (r = −0.429, P = 0.023), but not ∆HEMG ANTAG (r = 0.298, P = 0.123) or ∆QUADSθ p (r = −0.207, P = 0.291). Multiple regression analysis revealed 59.9% of the total variance in ∆MVT after RT to be explained by ∆QEMG MVT (30.6%), ∆QUADS VOL (18.7%), and pre-training MVT (10.6%). Conclusions Changes in agonist neural drive, quadriceps muscle volume and pre-training strength combined to explain the majority of the variance in strength changes after knee extensor RT (~60%) and adaptations in agonist neural drive were the most important single predictor during this short-term intervention. Keywords

Isometric training and long‐term adaptations: Effects of muscle length, intensity, and intent: A systematic review

“…Similar findings are reported by Balshaw et al and Tillin and Folland where only the ballistic training groups significantly ( P < 0.05) improved force at 50 and 100 ms (Table ). These findings are not surprising, as several researchers have reported increased rapid force and power production, driven heavily by neurological alterations . Additionally, there is evidence to suggest that the intent of movement may be of similar value to actual external contraction velocity when improving RFD characteristics …”

“…These findings are not surprising, as several researchers have reported increased rapid force and power production, driven heavily by neurological alterations. [104][105][106] Additionally, there is evidence to suggest that the intent of movement may be of similar value to actual external contraction velocity when improving RFD characteristics. 107…”

Does normalization of voluntary EMG amplitude to MMAX account for the influence of electrode location and adiposity?

“…Furthermore, M MAX may be particularly useful as an independent reference for normalization of sEMG during maximum voluntary isometric contractions (MVCs); given that the most widely used voluntary reference task (MVCs) are not valid in this case (ie a variable normalized to itself) . Both M MAX amplitude (ie peak‐to‐peak, M MAX P‐P) and area (M MAX Area), which is dependent on both amplitude and duration of the evoked potentials, have been suggested/used as reference normalization measurements for voluntary sEMG . Although M MAX normalization of voluntary sEMG has been demonstrated to reduce between‐participant variability it is currently unknown if M MAX normalization of voluntary EMG recordings: (a) removes the influence of electrode location across the surface of the muscle on voluntary sEMG amplitude, and (b) removes the influence of MED on voluntary sEMG amplitude between‐participants.…”

Influence of Playing Standard on Upper- and Lower-Body Strength, Power, and Velocity Characteristics of Elite Rugby League Players

“…Like body mass, these strength differences might be explained by maturity and training age of the participants. A greater fat-free mass in senior players, indicated by a higher body mass and lower skinfold thickness, might also contribute to the higher force production in senior players [24,25]. Together, these data reaffirm that upper-and lower-body maximum strength are key descriptors of playing standard between rugby league athletes.…”

“…These differences in velocity might be explained by the greater strength with higher playing standards, and thus the absolute loadings accounting for a lower percentage of 1RM in the higher playing standards. Moreover, morphological (e.g., greater amount of type 2 fibres, pennation angle) and neurological (e.g., decreased antagonist coactivation, motor unit synchronisation) differences [6,24,25,27] might provide a more mechanistic explanation of the differences observed in the current study. Practically, strength and conditioning coaches should aim to improve upper-and lower-body velocity at a range of external loads as players progress from lower to higher playing standards.…”