Ryo Kataoka, Yujiro Yamada, William B. Hammert, Anna Kang, Jeremy P. Loenneke
{"title":"Do skeletal muscles compete with each other for growth?","authors":"Ryo Kataoka, Yujiro Yamada, William B. Hammert, Anna Kang, Jeremy P. Loenneke","doi":"10.1016/j.mehy.2024.111525","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Within the resistance training literature, a within-subject training model is often used to compare two separate training interventions within the same individual. While this model has some advantages related to statistical power, potential concerns have been raised when investigating changes in muscle strength. Conversely, it is currently believed that muscle growth is driven by local mechanisms. Thus, a within-subject design could potentially still be used if the sole outcome variable is changes in muscle size. What remains less clear, however, is whether the magnitude of skeletal muscle growth with resistance training is negatively influenced by the amount of muscle recruited within a given training period (e.g., upper body exercise only vs. same upper body exercise plus lower body resistance exercises). We hypothesize that there might be a competition for resources on skeletal muscle growth when more muscles are activated within a given training session and/or period, which might be moderated by energy availability. Determining the extent to which muscle exercised during resistance training influences skeletal muscle growth may provide important methodological considerations for researchers and practitioners alike. From a practical sense, if the competition of resources exists, one may benefit from specializing a certain muscle group to train within a given training period while deemphasizing other muscle groups.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":18425,"journal":{"name":"Medical hypotheses","volume":"194 ","pages":"Article 111525"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical hypotheses","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987724002688","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Within the resistance training literature, a within-subject training model is often used to compare two separate training interventions within the same individual. While this model has some advantages related to statistical power, potential concerns have been raised when investigating changes in muscle strength. Conversely, it is currently believed that muscle growth is driven by local mechanisms. Thus, a within-subject design could potentially still be used if the sole outcome variable is changes in muscle size. What remains less clear, however, is whether the magnitude of skeletal muscle growth with resistance training is negatively influenced by the amount of muscle recruited within a given training period (e.g., upper body exercise only vs. same upper body exercise plus lower body resistance exercises). We hypothesize that there might be a competition for resources on skeletal muscle growth when more muscles are activated within a given training session and/or period, which might be moderated by energy availability. Determining the extent to which muscle exercised during resistance training influences skeletal muscle growth may provide important methodological considerations for researchers and practitioners alike. From a practical sense, if the competition of resources exists, one may benefit from specializing a certain muscle group to train within a given training period while deemphasizing other muscle groups.
期刊介绍:
Medical Hypotheses is a forum for ideas in medicine and related biomedical sciences. It will publish interesting and important theoretical papers that foster the diversity and debate upon which the scientific process thrives. The Aims and Scope of Medical Hypotheses are no different now from what was proposed by the founder of the journal, the late Dr David Horrobin. In his introduction to the first issue of the Journal, he asks ''what sorts of papers will be published in Medical Hypotheses? and goes on to answer ''Medical Hypotheses will publish papers which describe theories, ideas which have a great deal of observational support and some hypotheses where experimental support is yet fragmentary''. (Horrobin DF, 1975 Ideas in Biomedical Science: Reasons for the foundation of Medical Hypotheses. Medical Hypotheses Volume 1, Issue 1, January-February 1975, Pages 1-2.). Medical Hypotheses was therefore launched, and still exists today, to give novel, radical new ideas and speculations in medicine open-minded consideration, opening the field to radical hypotheses which would be rejected by most conventional journals. Papers in Medical Hypotheses take a standard scientific form in terms of style, structure and referencing. The journal therefore constitutes a bridge between cutting-edge theory and the mainstream of medical and scientific communication, which ideas must eventually enter if they are to be critiqued and tested against observations.