Sean P Kilroe1, Jonathan Fulford2, Sarah R Jackman1, Luc J C VAN Loon3, Benjamin T Wall1. 1. Department of Sport and Health Sciences, College of Life and Environmental Science, University of Exeter, Exeter, UNITED KINGDOM. 2. Peninsula NIHR Clinical Research Facility, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UNITED KINGDOM. 3. Department of Human Biology, NUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, THE NETHERLANDS.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Musculoskeletal injuries necessitate periods of disuse (i.e., limb immobilization) during which rapid skeletal muscle atrophy occurs. The relative susceptibility of different muscles of the thigh to disuse atrophy remains uninvestigated. We assessed muscle disuse atrophy of individual thigh muscles throughout 1 wk of unilateral knee immobilization. METHODS: Thirteen healthy, young (20.2 ± 0.6 yr) men underwent 7 d of unilateral leg immobilization via knee bracing. Magnetic resonance imaging scans were performed bilaterally prior to, and following 2 and 7 d of immobilization to determine the volume and anatomical cross-sectional area of the individual muscle groups of the upper legs. RESULTS: In contrast to the control leg, total thigh muscle volume had decreased by 1.7% ± 0.3% (P < 0.01) and 5.5% ± 0.6% (P < 0.001) in the immobilized leg after 2 and 7 d of disuse, respectively. Muscle loss was significantly greater in the Musculus quadriceps (day 2; 1.7% ± 0.3% (P < 0.05) and day 7; 6.7% ± 0.6%) when compared with the Musculus hamstrings (day 2; 1.4% ± 0.2% (P < 0.01) and day 7; 3.5% ± 0.3%) after 7 d of disuse (P < 0.001). Individual muscles of the thigh exhibited different atrophy rates with the Musculus vastus lateralis anatomical cross-sectional area showing the greater (2.6% ± 0.4% and 7.2% ± 0.8%), and the Musculus gracilis the lesser (1.1% ± 0.7% and 2.3% ± 1.0%) decline following 2 and 7 d of immobilization, respectively (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Thigh muscle disuse atrophy occurs rapidly and is already evident within 2 d of leg immobilization and progresses at a similar rate over the next 5 d (~0.8% muscle loss per day). M. quadriceps muscle shows more atrophy when compared with the M. hamstrings.
PURPOSE:Musculoskeletal injuries necessitate periods of disuse (i.e., limb immobilization) during which rapid skeletal muscle atrophy occurs. The relative susceptibility of different muscles of the thigh to disuse atrophy remains uninvestigated. We assessed muscle disuse atrophy of individual thigh muscles throughout 1 wk of unilateral knee immobilization. METHODS: Thirteen healthy, young (20.2 ± 0.6 yr) men underwent 7 d of unilateral leg immobilization via knee bracing. Magnetic resonance imaging scans were performed bilaterally prior to, and following 2 and 7 d of immobilization to determine the volume and anatomical cross-sectional area of the individual muscle groups of the upper legs. RESULTS: In contrast to the control leg, total thigh muscle volume had decreased by 1.7% ± 0.3% (P < 0.01) and 5.5% ± 0.6% (P < 0.001) in the immobilized leg after 2 and 7 d of disuse, respectively. Muscle loss was significantly greater in the Musculus quadriceps (day 2; 1.7% ± 0.3% (P < 0.05) and day 7; 6.7% ± 0.6%) when compared with the Musculus hamstrings (day 2; 1.4% ± 0.2% (P < 0.01) and day 7; 3.5% ± 0.3%) after 7 d of disuse (P < 0.001). Individual muscles of the thigh exhibited different atrophy rates with the Musculus vastus lateralis anatomical cross-sectional area showing the greater (2.6% ± 0.4% and 7.2% ± 0.8%), and the Musculus gracilis the lesser (1.1% ± 0.7% and 2.3% ± 1.0%) decline following 2 and 7 d of immobilization, respectively (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Thigh muscle disuse atrophy occurs rapidly and is already evident within 2 d of leg immobilization and progresses at a similar rate over the next 5 d (~0.8% muscle loss per day). M. quadriceps muscle shows more atrophy when compared with the M. hamstrings.
Authors: Joel D Trinity; Micah J Drummond; Caitlin C Fermoyle; Alec I McKenzie; Mark A Supiano; Russell S Richardson Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2022-02-03
Authors: Benoit Smeuninx; Yasir S Elhassan; Konstantinos N Manolopoulos; Elizabeth Sapey; Alison B Rushton; Sophie J Edwards; Paul T Morgan; Andrew Philp; Matthew S Brook; Nima Gharahdaghi; Kenneth Smith; Philip J Atherton; Leigh Breen Journal: J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle Date: 2020-12-21 Impact factor: 12.910
Authors: Joseph J Bass; Edward J O Hardy; Thomas B Inns; Daniel J Wilkinson; Mathew Piasecki; Robert H Morris; Abi Spicer; Craig Sale; Ken Smith; Philip J Atherton; Bethan E Phillips Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Richard Kirwan; Deaglan McCullough; Tom Butler; Fatima Perez de Heredia; Ian G Davies; Claire Stewart Journal: Geroscience Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 7.713
Authors: Keith A Stokes; Ben Jones; Mark Bennett; Graeme L Close; Nicholas Gill; James H Hull; Andreas M Kasper; Simon P T Kemp; Stephen D Mellalieu; Nicholas Peirce; Bob Stewart; Benjamin T Wall; Stephen W West; Matthew Cross Journal: Int J Sports Med Date: 2020-05-29 Impact factor: 3.118