Nathaniel D M Jenkins1, Terry J Housh1, Haley C Bergstrom2, Kristen C Cochrane1, Ethan C Hill1, Cory M Smith1, Glen O Johnson1, Richard J Schmidt1, Joel T Cramer3. 1. Department of Nutrition and Health Sciences, Room 211, Ruth Leverton Hall, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, 68583-0806, USA. 2. Department of Kinesiology and Health Promotion, 221 Seaton Building, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, 40506-0219, USA. 3. Department of Nutrition and Health Sciences, Room 211, Ruth Leverton Hall, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, 68583-0806, USA. jcramer@unl.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate electromyographic amplitude (EMG AMP), EMG mean power frequency (MPF), exercise volume (VOL), total work and muscle activation (iEMG), and time under concentric load (TUCL) during, and muscle cross-sectional area (mCSA) before and after 3 sets to failure at 80 vs. 30 % 1RM resistance exercise. METHODS: Nine men (mean ± SD, age 21.0 ± 2.4 years, resistance training week(-1) 6.0 ± 3.7 h) and 9 women (age 22.8 ± 3.8 years, resistance training week(-1) 3.4 ± 3.5 h) completed 1RM testing, followed by 2 experimental sessions during which they completed 3 sets to failure of leg extension exercise at 80 or 30 % 1RM. EMG signals were collected to quantify EMG AMP and MPF during the initial, middle, and last repetition of each set. Ultrasound was used to assess mCSA pre- and post-exercise, and VOL, total work, iEMG, and TUCL were calculated. RESULTS: EMG AMP remained greater at 80 % than 30 % 1RM across all reps and sets, despite increasing 74 and 147 % across reps at 80 and 30 % 1RM, respectively. EMG MPF decreased across reps at 80 and 30 % 1RM, but decreased more and was lower for the last reps at 30 than 80 % 1RM (71.6 vs. 78.1 % MVIC). mCSA increased more from pre- to post-exercise for 30 % (20.2-24.1 cm(2)) than 80 % 1RM (20.3-22.8 cm(2)). VOL, total work, iEMG and TUCL were greater for 30 % than 80 % 1RM. CONCLUSION: Muscle activation was greater at 80 % 1RM. However, differences in volume, metabolic byproduct accumulation, and muscle swelling may help explain the unexpected adaptations in hypertrophy vs. strength observed in previous studies.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate electromyographic amplitude (EMG AMP), EMG mean power frequency (MPF), exercise volume (VOL), total work and muscle activation (iEMG), and time under concentric load (TUCL) during, and muscle cross-sectional area (mCSA) before and after 3 sets to failure at 80 vs. 30 % 1RM resistance exercise. METHODS: Nine men (mean ± SD, age 21.0 ± 2.4 years, resistance training week(-1) 6.0 ± 3.7 h) and 9 women (age 22.8 ± 3.8 years, resistance training week(-1) 3.4 ± 3.5 h) completed 1RM testing, followed by 2 experimental sessions during which they completed 3 sets to failure of leg extension exercise at 80 or 30 % 1RM. EMG signals were collected to quantify EMG AMP and MPF during the initial, middle, and last repetition of each set. Ultrasound was used to assess mCSA pre- and post-exercise, and VOL, total work, iEMG, and TUCL were calculated. RESULTS: EMG AMP remained greater at 80 % than 30 % 1RM across all reps and sets, despite increasing 74 and 147 % across reps at 80 and 30 % 1RM, respectively. EMG MPF decreased across reps at 80 and 30 % 1RM, but decreased more and was lower for the last reps at 30 than 80 % 1RM (71.6 vs. 78.1 % MVIC). mCSA increased more from pre- to post-exercise for 30 % (20.2-24.1 cm(2)) than 80 % 1RM (20.3-22.8 cm(2)). VOL, total work, iEMG and TUCL were greater for 30 % than 80 % 1RM. CONCLUSION: Muscle activation was greater at 80 % 1RM. However, differences in volume, metabolic byproduct accumulation, and muscle swelling may help explain the unexpected adaptations in hypertrophy vs. strength observed in previous studies.
Authors: Nicholas A Burd; Cameron J Mitchell; Tyler A Churchward-Venne; Stuart M Phillips Journal: Appl Physiol Nutr Metab Date: 2012-04-26 Impact factor: 2.665
Authors: Cameron J Mitchell; Tyler A Churchward-Venne; Daniel W D West; Nicholas A Burd; Leigh Breen; Steven K Baker; Stuart M Phillips Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2012-04-19
Authors: Daniil V Popov; Evgeny A Lysenko; Anton V Bachinin; Tatiana F Miller; Nadezda S Kurochkina; Irina V Kravchenko; Vladimir A Furalyov; Olga L Vinogradova Journal: Muscle Nerve Date: 2015-01-06 Impact factor: 3.217
Authors: Nicholas A Burd; Richard J Andrews; Daniel W D West; Jonathan P Little; Andrew J R Cochran; Amy J Hector; Joshua G A Cashaback; Martin J Gibala; James R Potvin; Steven K Baker; Stuart M Phillips Journal: J Physiol Date: 2011-11-21 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: Carol Ewing Garber; Bryan Blissmer; Michael R Deschenes; Barry A Franklin; Michael J Lamonte; I-Min Lee; David C Nieman; David P Swain Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Kylie K Harmon; Adam S Hamilton; Brent D Johnson; Frank J Bartek; Ryan M Girts; Rob J MacLennan; Debbie L Hahs-Vaughn; Matt S Stock Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2021-01-23 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Vitor Angleri; Ramon DE Oliveira; Thais M P C Biazon; Felipe Damas; Audrey Borghi-Silva; Renato Barroso; Cleiton A Libardi Journal: Int J Exerc Sci Date: 2020-12-01
Authors: Robert W Morton; Sara Y Oikawa; Christopher G Wavell; Nicole Mazara; Chris McGlory; Joe Quadrilatero; Brittany L Baechler; Steven K Baker; Stuart M Phillips Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2016-05-12
Authors: Andrew D Vigotsky; Israel Halperin; Gregory J Lehman; Gabriel S Trajano; Taian M Vieira Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2018-01-04 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: N Dm Jenkins; T J Housh; S L Buckner; H C Bergstrom; C M Smith; K C Cochrane; E C Hill; A A Miramonti; R J Schmidt; G O Johnson; J T Cramer Journal: J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 2.041