Do skeletal muscles compete with each other for growth?

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
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,&nbsp;Yujiro Yamada,&nbsp;William B. Hammert,&nbsp;Anna Kang,&nbsp;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.
骨骼肌在生长过程中会相互竞争吗?
在阻力训练文献中,受试者内训练模型通常用于比较同一个体内两种不同的训练干预措施。虽然这种模式在统计能力方面有一些优势,但在研究肌肉力量变化时,也提出了一些潜在的问题。相反,目前认为肌肉生长是由局部机制驱动的。因此,如果唯一的结果变量是肌肉大小的变化,则仍有可能使用受试者内设计。然而,尚不清楚的是,阻力训练中骨骼肌增长的幅度是否会受到特定训练时间内所招募肌肉量的负面影响(例如,仅上半身锻炼与相同的上半身锻炼加下半身阻力锻炼)。我们假设,在特定的训练课和/或训练期间,当更多的肌肉被激活时,骨骼肌的生长可能会出现资源竞争,这可能会受到能量供应的影响。确定阻力训练中肌肉运动对骨骼肌生长的影响程度,可为研究人员和从业人员提供重要的方法论考虑。从实际意义上讲,如果存在资源竞争,那么在特定训练时间内专门训练某一肌肉群,同时不强调其他肌肉群,可能会使人受益。
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
Medical hypotheses
Medical hypotheses 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
2.10%
发文量
167
审稿时长
60 days
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.
×
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