Literature DB >> 26388513

Single muscle fibre contractile properties differ between body-builders, power athletes and control subjects.

J P Meijer1,2, R T Jaspers2, J Rittweger3, O R Seynnes4, S Kamandulis5, M Brazaitis5, A Skurvydas5, R Pišot6, B Šimunič6, M V Narici7, H Degens1,5.   

Abstract

NEW
FINDINGS: What is the central question of this study? Do the contractile properties of single muscle fibres differ between body-builders, power athletes and control subjects? What is the main finding and its importance? Peak power normalized for muscle fibre volume in power athletes is higher than in control subjects. Compared with control subjects, maximal isometric tension (normalized for muscle fibre cross-sectional area) is lower in body-builders. Although this difference may be caused in part by an apparent negative effect of hypertrophy, these results indicate that the training history of power athletes may increase muscle fibre quality, whereas body-building may be detrimental. We compared muscle fibre contractile properties of biopsies taken from the vastus lateralis of 12 body-builders (BBs; low- to moderate-intensity high-volume resistance training), six power athletes (PAs; high-intensity, low-volume combined with aerobic training) and 14 control subjects (Cs). Maximal isotonic contractions were performed in single muscle fibres, typed with SDS-PAGE. Fibre cross-sectional area was 67 and 88% (P < 0.01) larger in BBs than in PAs and Cs, respectively, with no significant difference in fibre cross-sectional area between PAs and Cs. Fibres of BBs and PAs developed a higher maximal isometric tension (32 and 50%, respectively, P < 0.01) than those of Cs. The specific tension of BB fibres was 62 and 41% lower than that of PA and C fibres (P < 0.05), respectively. Irrespective of fibre type, the peak power (PP) of PA fibres was 58% higher than that of BB fibres (P < 0.05), whereas BB fibres, despite considerable hypertrophy, had similar PP to the C fibres. This work suggests that high-intensity, low-volume resistance training with aerobic exercise improves PP, while low- to moderate-intensity high-volume resistance training does not affect PP and results in a reduction in specific tension. We postulate that the decrease in specific tension is caused by differences in myofibrillar density and/or post-translational modifications of contractile proteins.
© 2015 The Authors. Experimental Physiology © 2015 The Physiological Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26388513     DOI: 10.1113/EP085267

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Physiol        ISSN: 0958-0670            Impact factor:   2.969


  17 in total

1.  Differential Effects of Heavy Versus Moderate Loads on Measures of Strength and Hypertrophy in Resistance-Trained Men.

Authors:  Brad J Schoenfeld; Bret Contreras; Andrew D Vigotsky; Mark Peterson
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 2.988

2.  Passive and active muscle elasticity of medial gastrocnemius is related to performance in sprinters.

Authors:  Kazuhiko Yamazaki; Kakeru Inoue; Naokazu Miyamoto
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2021-11-19       Impact factor: 3.078

3.  Relationship between hypertrophy, strength gains and tensiomyography adaptations: a moderator role of contraction duration.

Authors:  Filip Kojić; Radenko Arsenijević; Vladimir Ilić; Saša Đurić
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2022-07-13       Impact factor: 3.346

4.  Influence of the contractile properties of muscle on motor unit firing rates during a moderate-intensity contraction in vivo.

Authors:  Michael A Trevino; Trent J Herda; Andrew C Fry; Philip M Gallagher; John P Vardiman; Eric M Mosier; Jonathan D Miller
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-05-04       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  Lean Body Mass and Muscle Cross-Sectional Area Adaptations Among College Age Males with Different Strength Levels across 11 Weeks of Block Periodized Programmed Resistance Training.

Authors:  Paul A Moquin; Alexander B Wetmore; Kevin M Carroll; Andrew C Fry; W Guy Hornsby; Michael H Stone
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-04-29       Impact factor: 3.390

6.  Association analysis of ACE, ACTN3 and PPARGC1A gene polymorphisms in two cohorts of European strength and power athletes.

Authors:  V Gineviciene; A Jakaitiene; M O Aksenov; A V Aksenova; A M Druzhevskaya; I V Astratenkova; E S Egorova; L J Gabdrakhmanova; L Tubelis; V Kucinskas; A Utkus
Journal:  Biol Sport       Date:  2016-05-03       Impact factor: 2.806

7.  Association of PPARGC1A Gly428Ser (rs8192678) polymorphism with potential for athletic ability and sports performance: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Phuntila Tharabenjasin; Noel Pabalan; Hamdi Jarjanazi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-01-09       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Muscle fiber hypertrophy in response to 6 weeks of high-volume resistance training in trained young men is largely attributed to sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.

Authors:  Cody T Haun; Christopher G Vann; Shelby C Osburn; Petey W Mumford; Paul A Roberson; Matthew A Romero; Carlton D Fox; Christopher A Johnson; Hailey A Parry; Andreas N Kavazis; Jordan R Moon; Veera L D Badisa; Benjamin M Mwashote; Victor Ibeanusi; Kaelin C Young; Michael D Roberts
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-06-05       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Skeletal Muscle Myofibrillar Protein Abundance Is Higher in Resistance-Trained Men, and Aging in the Absence of Training May Have an Opposite Effect.

Authors:  Christopher G Vann; Paul A Roberson; Shelby C Osburn; Petey W Mumford; Matthew A Romero; Carlton D Fox; Johnathon H Moore; Cody T Haun; Darren T Beck; Jordan R Moon; Andreas N Kavazis; Kaelin C Young; Veera L D Badisa; Benjamin M Mwashote; Victor Ibeanusi; Rakesh K Singh; Michael D Roberts
Journal:  Sports (Basel)       Date:  2020-01-10

Review 10.  Identifying the Structural Adaptations that Drive the Mechanical Load-Induced Growth of Skeletal Muscle: A Scoping Review.

Authors:  Kent W Jorgenson; Stuart M Phillips; Troy A Hornberger
Journal:  Cells       Date:  2020-07-09       Impact factor: 6.600

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.