Thomas G Balshaw1,2, Garry J Massey3,4, Thomas M Maden-Wilkinson4,5, Antonio J Morales-Artacho4, Alexandra McKeown4, Clare L Appleby4, Jonathan P Folland3,4. 1. Arthritis Research UK Centre for Sport, Exercise and Osteoarthritis, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, UK. t.g.balshaw@lboro.ac.uk. 2. School of Sport, Exercise, and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK. t.g.balshaw@lboro.ac.uk. 3. Arthritis Research UK Centre for Sport, Exercise and Osteoarthritis, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, UK. 4. School of Sport, Exercise, and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK. 5. Faculty of Health and Wellbeing, Collegiate Campus, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Whilst neural and morphological adaptations following resistance training (RT) have been investigated extensively at a group level, relatively little is known about the contribution of specific physiological mechanisms, or pre-training strength, to the individual changes in strength following training. This study investigated the contribution of multiple underpinning neural [agonist EMG (QEMGMVT), antagonist EMG (HEMGANTAG)] and morphological variables [total quadriceps volume (QUADSVOL), and muscle fascicle pennation angle (QUADSθ p)], as well as pre-training strength, to the individual changes in strength after 12 weeks of knee extensor RT. METHODS: Twenty-eight healthy young men completed 12 weeks of isometric knee extensor RT (3/week). Isometric maximum voluntary torque (MVT) was assessed pre- and post-RT, as were simultaneous neural drive to the agonist (QEMGMVT) and antagonist (HEMGANTAG). In addition QUADSVOL was determined with MRI and QUADSθ p with B-mode ultrasound. RESULTS: Percentage changes (∆) in MVT were correlated to ∆QEMGMVT (r = 0.576, P = 0.001), ∆QUADSVOL (r = 0.461, P = 0.014), and pre-training MVT (r = -0.429, P = 0.023), but not ∆HEMGANTAG (r = 0.298, P = 0.123) or ∆QUADSθ p (r = -0.207, P = 0.291). Multiple regression analysis revealed 59.9% of the total variance in ∆MVT after RT to be explained by ∆QEMGMVT (30.6%), ∆QUADSVOL (18.7%), and pre-training MVT (10.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Changes in agonist neural drive, quadriceps muscle volume and pre-training strength combined to explain the majority of the variance in strength changes after knee extensor RT (~60%) and adaptations in agonist neural drive were the most important single predictor during this short-term intervention.
PURPOSE: Whilst neural and morphological adaptations following resistance training (RT) have been investigated extensively at a group level, relatively little is known about the contribution of specific physiological mechanisms, or pre-training strength, to the individual changes in strength following training. This study investigated the contribution of multiple underpinning neural [agonist EMG (QEMGMVT), antagonist EMG (HEMGANTAG)] and morphological variables [total quadriceps volume (QUADSVOL), and muscle fascicle pennation angle (QUADSθ p)], as well as pre-training strength, to the individual changes in strength after 12 weeks of knee extensor RT. METHODS: Twenty-eight healthy young men completed 12 weeks of isometric knee extensor RT (3/week). Isometric maximum voluntary torque (MVT) was assessed pre- and post-RT, as were simultaneous neural drive to the agonist (QEMGMVT) and antagonist (HEMGANTAG). In addition QUADSVOL was determined with MRI and QUADSθ p with B-mode ultrasound. RESULTS: Percentage changes (∆) in MVT were correlated to ∆QEMGMVT (r = 0.576, P = 0.001), ∆QUADSVOL (r = 0.461, P = 0.014), and pre-training MVT (r = -0.429, P = 0.023), but not ∆HEMGANTAG (r = 0.298, P = 0.123) or ∆QUADSθ p (r = -0.207, P = 0.291). Multiple regression analysis revealed 59.9% of the total variance in ∆MVT after RT to be explained by ∆QEMGMVT (30.6%), ∆QUADSVOL (18.7%), and pre-training MVT (10.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Changes in agonist neural drive, quadriceps muscle volume and pre-training strength combined to explain the majority of the variance in strength changes after knee extensor RT (~60%) and adaptations in agonist neural drive were the most important single predictor during this short-term intervention.
Authors: P Aagaard; J L Andersen; P Dyhre-Poulsen; A M Leffers; A Wagner; S P Magnusson; J Halkjaer-Kristensen; E B Simonsen Journal: J Physiol Date: 2001-07-15 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: Robert M Erskine; David A Jones; Alun G Williams; Claire E Stewart; Hans Degens Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2010-08-12 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: B L Tracy; F M Ivey; D Hurlbut; G F Martel; J T Lemmer; E L Siegel; E J Metter; J L Fozard; J L Fleg; B F Hurley Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 1999-01
Authors: Thomas G Balshaw; Garry J Massey; Thomas M Maden-Wilkinson; Jonathan P Folland Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2017-04-22 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Samuel L Buckner; Scott J Dankel; Kevin T Mattocks; Matthew B Jessee; J Grant Mouser; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2017-04-22 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Scott J Dankel; Samuel L Buckner; Matthew B Jessee; J Grant Mouser; Kevin T Mattocks; Takashi Abe; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: Sports Med Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Adam J Sterczala; Jonathan D Miller; Hannah L Dimmick; Mandy E Wray; Michael A Trevino; Trent J Herda Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2019-12-12 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Juha P Ahtiainen; Sanna Lensu; Ilona Ruotsalainen; Moritz Schumann; Johanna K Ihalainen; Vasco Fachada; Christopher L Mendias; Matthew S Brook; Kenneth Smith; Philip J Atherton; Lauren G Koch; Steven L Britton; Heikki Kainulainen Journal: Exp Physiol Date: 2018-10-09 Impact factor: 2.969
Authors: Leatha A Clark; David W Russ; Dallin Tavoian; W David Arnold; Timothy D Law; Christopher R France; Brian C Clark Journal: Exp Gerontol Date: 2021-06-04 Impact factor: 4.253