UNLABELLED: Resistance training (RT) is a proven sarcopenia countermeasure with a high degree of potency. However, sustainability remains a major issue that could limit the appeal of RT as a therapeutic approach without well-defined dosing requirements to maintain gains. PURPOSE: To test the efficacy of two maintenance prescriptions on muscle mass, myofiber size and type distribution, and strength. We hypothesized the minimum dose required to maintain RT-induced adaptations would be greater in the old (60-75 yr) versus young (20-35 yr). METHODS:Seventy adults participated in a two-phase exercise trial that consisted of RT 3 d·wk for 16 wk (phase 1) followed by a 32-wk period (phase 2) withrandom assignment to detraining or one of two maintenance prescriptions (reducing the dose to one-third or one-ninth of that during phase 1). RESULTS: Phase 1 resulted in expected gains in strength, myofiber size, and muscle mass along with the typical IIx-to-IIa shift in myofiber-type distribution. Both maintenance prescriptions preserved phase 1 muscle hypertrophy in the young but not the old. In fact, the one-third maintenance dose led to additional myofiber hypertrophy in the young. In both age groups, detraining reversed the phase 1 IIx-to-IIa myofiber-type shift, whereas a dose response was evident during maintenance training with the one-third dose better maintaining the shift. Strength gained during phase 1 was largely retained throughout detraining with only a slight reduction at the final time point. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that older adults require a higher dose of weekly loading than the young to maintain myofiber hypertrophy attained during a progressive RT program, yet gains in specific strength among older adults were well preserved and remained at or above levels of the untrained young.
RCT Entities:
UNLABELLED: Resistance training (RT) is a proven sarcopenia countermeasure with a high degree of potency. However, sustainability remains a major issue that could limit the appeal of RT as a therapeutic approach without well-defined dosing requirements to maintain gains. PURPOSE: To test the efficacy of two maintenance prescriptions on muscle mass, myofiber size and type distribution, and strength. We hypothesized the minimum dose required to maintain RT-induced adaptations would be greater in the old (60-75 yr) versus young (20-35 yr). METHODS: Seventy adults participated in a two-phase exercise trial that consisted of RT 3 d·wk for 16 wk (phase 1) followed by a 32-wk period (phase 2) with random assignment to detraining or one of two maintenance prescriptions (reducing the dose to one-third or one-ninth of that during phase 1). RESULTS: Phase 1 resulted in expected gains in strength, myofiber size, and muscle mass along with the typical IIx-to-IIa shift in myofiber-type distribution. Both maintenance prescriptions preserved phase 1 muscle hypertrophy in the young but not the old. In fact, the one-third maintenance dose led to additional myofiber hypertrophy in the young. In both age groups, detraining reversed the phase 1 IIx-to-IIa myofiber-type shift, whereas a dose response was evident during maintenance training with the one-third dose better maintaining the shift. Strength gained during phase 1 was largely retained throughout detraining with only a slight reduction at the final time point. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that older adults require a higher dose of weekly loading than the young to maintain myofiber hypertrophy attained during a progressive RT program, yet gains in specific strength among older adults were well preserved and remained at or above levels of the untrained young.
Authors: Michael J Stec; Neil A Kelly; Gina M Many; Samuel T Windham; S Craig Tuggle; Marcas M Bamman Journal: Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab Date: 2016-02-09 Impact factor: 4.310
Authors: A A Mero; J J Hulmi; H Salmijärvi; M Katajavuori; M Haverinen; J Holviala; T Ridanpää; K Häkkinen; V Kovanen; J P Ahtiainen; H Selänne Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2012-08-17 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Kaleen M Lavin; Brandon M Roberts; Christopher S Fry; Tatiana Moro; Blake B Rasmussen; Marcas M Bamman Journal: Physiology (Bethesda) Date: 2019-03-01
Authors: Scott J Dankel; Kevin T Mattocks; Matthew B Jessee; Samuel L Buckner; J Grant Mouser; Brittany R Counts; Gilberto C Laurentino; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: Sports Med Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Neil A Kelly; Matthew P Ford; David G Standaert; Ray L Watts; C Scott Bickel; Douglas R Moellering; S Craig Tuggle; Jeri Y Williams; Laura Lieb; Samuel T Windham; Marcas M Bamman Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2014-01-09
Authors: Neil A Kelly; Kelley G Hammond; Michael J Stec; C Scott Bickel; Samuel T Windham; S Craig Tuggle; Marcas M Bamman Journal: Muscle Nerve Date: 2017-09-07 Impact factor: 3.217