Robert W. Spitz, Scott J. Dankel, Matthew B. Jessee, Vickie Wong, Zachary W. Bell, Takashi Abe, Jeremy P. Loenneke
{"title":"肌肉生长是否介导非特异性力量任务的变化?","authors":"Robert W. Spitz, Scott J. Dankel, Matthew B. Jessee, Vickie Wong, Zachary W. Bell, Takashi Abe, Jeremy P. Loenneke","doi":"10.1111/cpf.12810","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The purpose of this study was to determine if muscle growth mediates increases in a strength task which was not directly trained. One hundred fifty-one participants were randomized into control, one-repetition maximum training (1RM-TRAIN), or traditional training (TRAD-TRAIN). Training groups performed isotonic elbow flexion 3x/week for 6 weeks. Anterior muscle thickness at 50%, 60% and 70% upper arm length, and maximal isokinetic torque at 60°/sec were assessed pre- and post-training. Change-score mediation models (adjusted for sex, pre-muscle thickness, and pre-strength) were constructed for each muscle thickness site. The effects of each training group were evaluated relative to the control. Data is presented as coefficient (95% CI). There were no significant relative direct effects on nonspecific strength for either training group outside of the 60% model (1.7 [0.13, 3.27] Nm). The relative effect of 1RM-TRAIN on muscle thickness was greater in 60% (0.09 [0.01, 0.17] cm) and 70% (0.09 [0.00, 0.17] cm) models; while TRAD-TRAIN was greater in all three: (50% = 0.24 [0.15, 0.32]; 60% = 0.24 [0.16, 0.33]; 70% = 0.22 [0.14, 0.31] cm). The effect of muscle thickness on nonspecific strength was only significant for the 60% (−3.06 [−5.7, −0.35] Nm) model. The relative indirect effect on nonspecific strength was not significant for the 1RM-TRAIN or TRAD-TRAIN. Similar to previous findings on specific strength, we did not find evidence for a mediating effect of muscle growth on training induced increases in nonspecific strength. The importance of muscle growth for changes in nonspecifically trained strength may need to be reconsidered.</p>","PeriodicalId":10504,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging","volume":"43 4","pages":"223-231"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does muscle growth mediate changes in a nonspecific strength task?\",\"authors\":\"Robert W. Spitz, Scott J. Dankel, Matthew B. Jessee, Vickie Wong, Zachary W. Bell, Takashi Abe, Jeremy P. Loenneke\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cpf.12810\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The purpose of this study was to determine if muscle growth mediates increases in a strength task which was not directly trained. One hundred fifty-one participants were randomized into control, one-repetition maximum training (1RM-TRAIN), or traditional training (TRAD-TRAIN). Training groups performed isotonic elbow flexion 3x/week for 6 weeks. Anterior muscle thickness at 50%, 60% and 70% upper arm length, and maximal isokinetic torque at 60°/sec were assessed pre- and post-training. Change-score mediation models (adjusted for sex, pre-muscle thickness, and pre-strength) were constructed for each muscle thickness site. The effects of each training group were evaluated relative to the control. Data is presented as coefficient (95% CI). There were no significant relative direct effects on nonspecific strength for either training group outside of the 60% model (1.7 [0.13, 3.27] Nm). The relative effect of 1RM-TRAIN on muscle thickness was greater in 60% (0.09 [0.01, 0.17] cm) and 70% (0.09 [0.00, 0.17] cm) models; while TRAD-TRAIN was greater in all three: (50% = 0.24 [0.15, 0.32]; 60% = 0.24 [0.16, 0.33]; 70% = 0.22 [0.14, 0.31] cm). The effect of muscle thickness on nonspecific strength was only significant for the 60% (−3.06 [−5.7, −0.35] Nm) model. The relative indirect effect on nonspecific strength was not significant for the 1RM-TRAIN or TRAD-TRAIN. Similar to previous findings on specific strength, we did not find evidence for a mediating effect of muscle growth on training induced increases in nonspecific strength. The importance of muscle growth for changes in nonspecifically trained strength may need to be reconsidered.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10504,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging\",\"volume\":\"43 4\",\"pages\":\"223-231\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cpf.12810\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHYSIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cpf.12810","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Does muscle growth mediate changes in a nonspecific strength task?
The purpose of this study was to determine if muscle growth mediates increases in a strength task which was not directly trained. One hundred fifty-one participants were randomized into control, one-repetition maximum training (1RM-TRAIN), or traditional training (TRAD-TRAIN). Training groups performed isotonic elbow flexion 3x/week for 6 weeks. Anterior muscle thickness at 50%, 60% and 70% upper arm length, and maximal isokinetic torque at 60°/sec were assessed pre- and post-training. Change-score mediation models (adjusted for sex, pre-muscle thickness, and pre-strength) were constructed for each muscle thickness site. The effects of each training group were evaluated relative to the control. Data is presented as coefficient (95% CI). There were no significant relative direct effects on nonspecific strength for either training group outside of the 60% model (1.7 [0.13, 3.27] Nm). The relative effect of 1RM-TRAIN on muscle thickness was greater in 60% (0.09 [0.01, 0.17] cm) and 70% (0.09 [0.00, 0.17] cm) models; while TRAD-TRAIN was greater in all three: (50% = 0.24 [0.15, 0.32]; 60% = 0.24 [0.16, 0.33]; 70% = 0.22 [0.14, 0.31] cm). The effect of muscle thickness on nonspecific strength was only significant for the 60% (−3.06 [−5.7, −0.35] Nm) model. The relative indirect effect on nonspecific strength was not significant for the 1RM-TRAIN or TRAD-TRAIN. Similar to previous findings on specific strength, we did not find evidence for a mediating effect of muscle growth on training induced increases in nonspecific strength. The importance of muscle growth for changes in nonspecifically trained strength may need to be reconsidered.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging publishes reports on clinical and experimental research pertinent to human physiology in health and disease. The scope of the Journal is very broad, covering all aspects of the regulatory system in the cardiovascular, renal and pulmonary systems with special emphasis on methodological aspects. The focus for the journal is, however, work that has potential clinical relevance. The Journal also features review articles on recent front-line research within these fields of interest.
Covered by the major abstracting services including Current Contents and Science Citation Index, Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging plays an important role in providing effective and productive communication among clinical physiologists world-wide.