Literature DB >> 22328004

Early-phase muscular adaptations in response to slow-speed versus traditional resistance-training regimens.

Mark D Schuenke1, Jennifer R Herman, Roger M Gliders, Fredrick C Hagerman, Robert S Hikida, Sharon R Rana, Kerry E Ragg, Robert S Staron.   

Abstract

Thirty-four untrained women participated in a 6-week program to investigate slow-speed versus "normal" speed resistance-training protocols. Subjects were divided into: slow-speed (SS), normal-speed/traditional-strength (TS), normal-speed/traditional muscular endurance (TE), and non-exercising control (C) groups. Leg press, squats, and knee extensions were performed 2 days/week for the first week and 3 days/week for the remaining 5 weeks (~2 min rest). The SS group performed 6-10 repetitions maximum (6-10RM) for each set with 10 s concentric (con) and 4 s eccentric (ecc) contractions. The TS and TE groups performed sets of 6-10RM and 20-30RM, respectively, at "normal" speed (1-2 s/con and ecc contractions). TE and SS trained at the same relative intensity (~40-60% 1RM), whereas TS trained at ~80-85% 1RM. Pre- and post-training muscle biopsies were analyzed for fiber-type composition, cross-sectional area (CSA), and myosin heavy chain (MHC) content. The percentage of type IIX fibers decreased and IIAX increased in all three training groups. However, only TS showed an increase in percentage of type IIA fibers. CSA of fiber types I, IIA, and IIX increased in TS. In SS, only the CSA of IIA and IIX fibers increased. These changes were supported by MHC data. No significant changes for any parameters were found for the C group. In conclusion, slow-speed strength training induced a greater adaptive response compared to training with a similar resistance at "normal" speed. However, training with a higher intensity at "normal" speed resulted in the greatest overall muscle fiber response in each of the variables assessed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22328004     DOI: 10.1007/s00421-012-2339-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol        ISSN: 1439-6319            Impact factor:   3.078


  42 in total

1.  Comparison of metabolic and heart rate responses to super slow vs. traditional resistance training.

Authors:  Gary R Hunter; Darryl Seelhorst; Scott Snyder
Journal:  J Strength Cond Res       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 3.775

Review 2.  Fundamentals of resistance training: progression and exercise prescription.

Authors:  William J Kraemer; Nicholas A Ratamess
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 5.411

3.  Resistance training for strength: effect of number of sets and contraction speed.

Authors:  Joanne Munn; Robert D Herbert; Mark J Hancock; Simon C Gandevia
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 5.411

4.  Effects of low-intensity resistance exercise with slow movement and tonic force generation on muscular function in young men.

Authors:  Michiya Tanimoto; Naokata Ishii
Journal:  J Appl Physiol (1985)       Date:  2005-12-08

5.  Comparison of early phase adaptations for traditional strength and endurance, and low velocity resistance training programs in college-aged women.

Authors:  Sharon R Rana; Gary S Chleboun; Roger M Gilders; Fredrick C Hagerman; Jennifer R Herman; Robert S Hikida; Michael R Kushnick; Robert S Staron; Kumika Toma
Journal:  J Strength Cond Res       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 3.775

6.  Strength and skeletal muscle adaptations in heavy-resistance-trained women after detraining and retraining.

Authors:  R S Staron; M J Leonardi; D L Karapondo; E S Malicky; J E Falkel; F C Hagerman; R S Hikida
Journal:  J Appl Physiol (1985)       Date:  1991-02

7.  Resistance exercise biology: manipulation of resistance exercise programme variables determines the responses of cellular and molecular signalling pathways.

Authors:  Barry A Spiering; William J Kraemer; Jeffrey M Anderson; Lawrence E Armstrong; Bradley C Nindl; Jeff S Volek; Carl M Maresh
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 11.136

8.  Three "myosin adenosine triphosphatase" systems: the nature of their pH lability and sulfhydryl dependence.

Authors:  M H Brooke; K K Kaiser
Journal:  J Histochem Cytochem       Date:  1970-09       Impact factor: 2.479

9.  Qualitative differences between actomyosin ATPase of slow and fast mammalian muscle.

Authors:  L Guth; F J Samaha
Journal:  Exp Neurol       Date:  1969-09       Impact factor: 5.330

10.  Short-term high- vs. low-velocity isokinetic lengthening training results in greater hypertrophy of the elbow flexors in young men.

Authors:  Tim N Shepstone; Jason E Tang; Stephane Dallaire; Mark D Schuenke; Robert S Staron; Stuart M Phillips
Journal:  J Appl Physiol (1985)       Date:  2005-01-07
View more
  26 in total

Review 1.  Intramuscular Anabolic Signaling and Endocrine Response Following Resistance Exercise: Implications for Muscle Hypertrophy.

Authors:  Adam M Gonzalez; Jay R Hoffman; Jeffrey R Stout; David H Fukuda; Darryn S Willoughby
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 11.136

2.  Author's reply to Steele and Fisher: "Scientific rigour: a heavy or light load to carry?": the importance of maintaining objectivity in drawing evidence-based conclusions.

Authors:  B Schoenfeld
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 11.136

3.  Preponderance of evidence proves "big" weights optimize hypertrophic and strength adaptations.

Authors:  Mark D Schuenke; Jennifer Herman; Robert S Staron
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2012-10-25       Impact factor: 3.078

4.  Big claims for big weights but with little evidence.

Authors:  Nicholas A Burd; Daniel R Moore; Cameron J Mitchell; Stuart M Phillips
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2012-10-20       Impact factor: 3.078

5.  Early-phase musculoskeletal adaptations to different levels of eccentric resistance after 8 weeks of lower body training.

Authors:  Kirk L English; James A Loehr; Stuart M C Lee; Scott M Smith
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2014-07-22       Impact factor: 3.078

6.  Scientific rigour: a heavy or light load to carry?

Authors:  James Steele; James Fisher
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 11.136

7.  High- and Low-Load Resistance Training: Interpretation and Practical Application of Current Research Findings.

Authors:  James Fisher; James Steele; Dave Smith
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 11.136

8.  The effects of supramaximal versus submaximal intensity eccentric training when performed until volitional fatigue.

Authors:  Joel R Krentz; Philip D Chilibeck; Jonathan P Farthing
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2017-08-18       Impact factor: 3.078

Review 9.  Is there a minimum intensity threshold for resistance training-induced hypertrophic adaptations?

Authors:  Brad J Schoenfeld
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 11.136

Review 10.  Effect of repetition duration during resistance training on muscle hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Brad J Schoenfeld; Dan I Ogborn; James W Krieger
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 11.136

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.