Increasing set volume relative to baseline does not augment skeletal muscle adaptations when compared to maintenance of baseline training volume in recreationally trained individuals.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 PHYSIOLOGY
European Journal of Applied Physiology Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-18 DOI:10.1007/s00421-024-05655-4
Enrique N Moreno, Danielle T Sampson, Elias C Figueroa, Matthew B Jessee, Samuel L Buckner
{"title":"Increasing set volume relative to baseline does not augment skeletal muscle adaptations when compared to maintenance of baseline training volume in recreationally trained individuals.","authors":"Enrique N Moreno, Danielle T Sampson, Elias C Figueroa, Matthew B Jessee, Samuel L Buckner","doi":"10.1007/s00421-024-05655-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study compared the effects of prescribing an increased number of sets relative to baseline (ITV) to a maintenance of baseline training volume (BTV), in previously trained individuals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Forty-two adults with more than 6 months of elbow flexion resistance training experience had each arm randomized to either the ITV or BTV condition. Participants performed 2-weekly sessions of unilateral standing dumbbell elbow flexion exercise for 12 weeks, 8 of which were supervised. Muscle thickness of the elbow flexors at 50, 60, and 70% the distance of the upper arm and one repetition-maximum (1RM) strength for the unilateral standing dumbbell elbow flexion exercise were assessed pre- and post-intervention.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For the 50% site, there was no evidence that the changes were different between BTV and ITV [∆BTV vs ∆ITV (cm) = 0.022 (95% CI - 0.096, 0.140)]. However, there was evidence that both conditions observed a greater change compared to the control. For the 60% site, there was no evidence that the changes were different between BTV and ITV [∆BTV vs ∆ITV (cm) = - 0.010 (95% CI - 0.155, 0.96)]. However, there was evidence that both conditions observed a greater change compared to the control. For the 70% site, there was no evidence that the changes were different between BTV and ITV [∆BTV vs ∆ITV (cm) = 0.004 (95% CI - 0.092, 0.101)]. However, there was evidence that both conditions observed a greater change compared to the control. For changes in 1RM, there was evidence that the change was greater in the BTV [∆BTV vs ∆Control (kg) = 1.915 (95% CI 1.219, 2.611)] and ITV [∆ITV vs ∆Control (kg) = 1.780 (95% CI 1.084, 2.475)] conditions compared to control.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Prescribing an increased dose of sets relative to baseline did not augment muscular adaptations when compared to a maintenance of BTV, in recreationally trained individuals. Both training conditions were similarly effective in promoting significant increases in muscle thickness and 1RM strength of the elbow flexors.</p>","PeriodicalId":12005,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Applied Physiology","volume":" ","pages":"1049-1059"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Applied Physiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-024-05655-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study compared the effects of prescribing an increased number of sets relative to baseline (ITV) to a maintenance of baseline training volume (BTV), in previously trained individuals.

Methods: Forty-two adults with more than 6 months of elbow flexion resistance training experience had each arm randomized to either the ITV or BTV condition. Participants performed 2-weekly sessions of unilateral standing dumbbell elbow flexion exercise for 12 weeks, 8 of which were supervised. Muscle thickness of the elbow flexors at 50, 60, and 70% the distance of the upper arm and one repetition-maximum (1RM) strength for the unilateral standing dumbbell elbow flexion exercise were assessed pre- and post-intervention.

Results: For the 50% site, there was no evidence that the changes were different between BTV and ITV [∆BTV vs ∆ITV (cm) = 0.022 (95% CI - 0.096, 0.140)]. However, there was evidence that both conditions observed a greater change compared to the control. For the 60% site, there was no evidence that the changes were different between BTV and ITV [∆BTV vs ∆ITV (cm) = - 0.010 (95% CI - 0.155, 0.96)]. However, there was evidence that both conditions observed a greater change compared to the control. For the 70% site, there was no evidence that the changes were different between BTV and ITV [∆BTV vs ∆ITV (cm) = 0.004 (95% CI - 0.092, 0.101)]. However, there was evidence that both conditions observed a greater change compared to the control. For changes in 1RM, there was evidence that the change was greater in the BTV [∆BTV vs ∆Control (kg) = 1.915 (95% CI 1.219, 2.611)] and ITV [∆ITV vs ∆Control (kg) = 1.780 (95% CI 1.084, 2.475)] conditions compared to control.

Conclusion: Prescribing an increased dose of sets relative to baseline did not augment muscular adaptations when compared to a maintenance of BTV, in recreationally trained individuals. Both training conditions were similarly effective in promoting significant increases in muscle thickness and 1RM strength of the elbow flexors.

与保持基线训练量相比,增加基线训练量并不能增强休闲训练者骨骼肌的适应能力。
目的:本研究比较了对以前接受过训练的人规定相对于基线增加组数(ITV)和维持基线训练量(BTV)的效果:42名有6个月以上肘关节屈伸阻力训练经验的成年人的每只手臂被随机分配到ITV或BTV条件下。参与者每两周进行一次单侧站立哑铃屈肘训练,为期 12 周,其中 8 周在监督下进行。在干预前和干预后,分别对上臂距离50%、60%和70%处的屈肘肌厚度以及单侧哑铃站立屈肘运动的单次最大力量(1RM)进行了评估:对于 50%的部位,没有证据表明 BTV 和 ITV 的变化有所不同[∆BTV vs ∆ITV (cm) = 0.022 (95% CI - 0.096, 0.140)]。不过,有证据表明,与对照组相比,两种情况都观察到了更大的变化。对于 60% 的部位,没有证据表明 BTV 和 ITV 的变化不同[∆BTV vs ∆ITV (cm) = - 0.010 (95% CI - 0.155, 0.96)]。不过,有证据表明,与对照组相比,两种情况都观察到了更大的变化。对于 70% 的部位,没有证据表明 BTV 和 ITV 的变化不同[∆BTV vs ∆ITV (cm) = 0.004 (95% CI - 0.092, 0.101)]。然而,有证据表明,与对照组相比,这两种情况都观察到了更大的变化。对于 1RM 的变化,有证据表明,与对照组相比,BTV [∆BTV vs ∆Control (kg) = 1.915 (95% CI 1.219, 2.611)]和 ITV [∆ITV vs ∆Control (kg) = 1.780 (95% CI 1.084, 2.475)]条件下的变化更大:结论:与维持 BTV 相比,对休闲训练者增加组训练量并不能增强肌肉适应能力。两种训练条件在促进肘屈肌肌肉厚度和 1RM 力量显著增加方面的效果相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
6.70%
发文量
227
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Applied Physiology (EJAP) aims to promote mechanistic advances in human integrative and translational physiology. Physiology is viewed broadly, having overlapping context with related disciplines such as biomechanics, biochemistry, endocrinology, ergonomics, immunology, motor control, and nutrition. EJAP welcomes studies dealing with physical exercise, training and performance. Studies addressing physiological mechanisms are preferred over descriptive studies. Papers dealing with animal models or pathophysiological conditions are not excluded from consideration, but must be clearly relevant to human physiology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信