Toshiharu Natsume1, Hayao Ozaki2, Ryo Kakigi3, Hiroyuki Kobayashi4, Hisashi Naito5,2. 1. Institute of Health and Sports Science & Medicine, Juntendo University, 1-1 Hirakagakuendai, Inzai, Chiba, 270-1695, Japan. natsumetoshiharu@gmail.com. 2. Graduate School of Health and Sports Science, Juntendo University, 1-1 Hirakagakuendai, Inzai, Chiba, 270-1695, Japan. 3. School of Medicine, Juntendo University, 2-1-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8421, Japan. 4. Department of General Medicine, Mito Medical Center, Tsukuba University Hospital, 3-2-7 Miyamachi, Mito, Ibaraki, 310-0015, Japan. 5. Institute of Health and Sports Science & Medicine, Juntendo University, 1-1 Hirakagakuendai, Inzai, Chiba, 270-1695, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: High-intensity neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) training can induce muscle hypertrophy at the whole muscle and muscle fiber levels. However, whether low-intensity NMES training has a similar result is unknown. This study aimed to investigate whether low-intensity NMES training could elicit muscle hypertrophy at the whole muscle and muscle fiber levels in the human skeletal muscle. METHODS: Eight untrained young males were subjected to 18 min of unilateral NMES training for 8 weeks. One leg received NMES at maximal tolerable intensity (HIGH); the other leg received NMES at an intensity half of that in the HIGH condition (LOW). Quadriceps muscle thickness (MT), muscle fiber cross-sectional area (CSA), and knee extension strength were measured before and after the training period. RESULTS: The average training intensity throughout the intervention period in the HIGH and LOW conditions were 62.5 ± 4.6% maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) and 32.6 ± 2.6% MVC, respectively. MT, CSA, and muscle strength increased in both exercise conditions (p < 0.05); however, training effects in the LOW condition were lower than those in the HIGH condition (p < 0.05). The average training intensity showed a positive correlation with percent changes in muscle strength (r = 0.797, p = 0.001), MT (r = 0.876, p = 0.001), type I fiber CSA (r = 0.730, p = 0.01), and type II fiber CSA (r = 0.899, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Low-intensity NMES could increase MT, muscle fiber CSA, and muscle strength in healthy human skeletal muscles. However, the magnitude of increase is lower in low-intensity than in high-intensity NMES training.
PURPOSE: High-intensity neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) training can induce muscle hypertrophy at the whole muscle and muscle fiber levels. However, whether low-intensity NMES training has a similar result is unknown. This study aimed to investigate whether low-intensity NMES training could elicit muscle hypertrophy at the whole muscle and muscle fiber levels in the human skeletal muscle. METHODS: Eight untrained young males were subjected to 18 min of unilateral NMES training for 8 weeks. One leg received NMES at maximal tolerable intensity (HIGH); the other leg received NMES at an intensity half of that in the HIGH condition (LOW). Quadriceps muscle thickness (MT), muscle fiber cross-sectional area (CSA), and knee extension strength were measured before and after the training period. RESULTS: The average training intensity throughout the intervention period in the HIGH and LOW conditions were 62.5 ± 4.6% maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) and 32.6 ± 2.6% MVC, respectively. MT, CSA, and muscle strength increased in both exercise conditions (p < 0.05); however, training effects in the LOW condition were lower than those in the HIGH condition (p < 0.05). The average training intensity showed a positive correlation with percent changes in muscle strength (r = 0.797, p = 0.001), MT (r = 0.876, p = 0.001), type I fiber CSA (r = 0.730, p = 0.01), and type II fiber CSA (r = 0.899, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Low-intensity NMES could increase MT, muscle fiber CSA, and muscle strength in healthy human skeletal muscles. However, the magnitude of increase is lower in low-intensity than in high-intensity NMES training.
Authors: K Kubo; Y Ishida; S Suzuki; T Komuro; H Shirasawa; N Ishiguro; Y Shukutani; N Tsunoda; H Kanehisa; T Fukunaga Journal: Scand J Med Sci Sports Date: 2007-05-09 Impact factor: 4.221
Authors: Benjamin T Wall; Marlou L Dirks; Lex B Verdijk; Tim Snijders; Dominique Hansen; Pascal Vranckx; Nicholas A Burd; Paul Dendale; Luc J C van Loon Journal: Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab Date: 2012-06-26 Impact factor: 4.310
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: Stephen D Patterson; Luke Hughes; Stuart Warmington; Jamie Burr; Brendan R Scott; Johnny Owens; Takashi Abe; Jakob L Nielsen; Cleiton Augusto Libardi; Gilberto Laurentino; Gabriel Rodrigues Neto; Christopher Brandner; Juan Martin-Hernandez; Jeremy Loenneke Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2019-05-15 Impact factor: 4.566