Matthew B Jessee1, Scott J Dankel2, John P Bentley3, Jeremy P Loenneke4. 1. Applied Human Health and Physical Function Laboratory, Department of Health, Exercise, Science, and Recreation Management, The University of Mississippi, University, MS, USA. 2. Exercise Physiology Laboratory, Department of Health and Exercise Science, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ, USA. 3. Department of Pharmacy Administration, The University of Mississippi, University, MS, USA. 4. Kevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory, Department of Health, Exercise, Science, and Recreation Management, The University of Mississippi, 231 Turner Center, University, MS, 38677, USA. jploenne@olemiss.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the role of muscle thickness changes on changes in strength following 6 weeks of unaccustomed resistance training, via retrospective analysis. METHODS: 151 participants completed 6 weeks of no intervention (CONTROL), one-repetition maximum training (1RM-TRAIN), or traditional resistance training (TRAD-TRAIN). Groups were assigned by covariate adaptive randomization. 1RM-TRAIN and TRAD-TRAIN performed elbow flexion exercise on the dominant arm 3 times/week. One-repetition maximum strength and muscle thickness (B-mode ultrasound at 50, 60, and 70% of the anterior upper arm) were assessed pre- and post-training. Direct and indirect effects on strength via each training modality were quantified relative to CONTROL using indicator-coded, change-score mediation analyses for each muscle thickness site. Values are presented as regression coefficients (95% CI). RESULTS: The effect of 1RM-TRAIN on muscle thickness was greater than CONTROL for 60% [0.09 (0.01, 0.17) cm] and 70% [0.09 (0.01,0.18) cm] models. All muscle thickness changes for TRAD-TRAIN were greater than CONTROL: 50% [0.24 (0.16, 0.33) cm], 60% [0.25 (0.17, 0.33) cm], 70% [0.23 (0.14, 0.32) cm]. All direct effects on strength were greater for 1RM-TRAIN versus CONTROL: 50% [1.90 (1.21, 2.58) kg], 60% [1.89 (1.19, 2.58) kg], 70% [1.81 (1.12, 2.51) kg]; and TRAD-TRAIN versus CONTROL: 50% [2.04 (1.29, 2.80) kg], 60% [1.98 (1.22, 2.75) kg], 70% [1.79 (1.05, 2.53) kg]. Compared to CONTROL, there was no indication of an effect of 1RM-TRAIN on strength through muscle thickness (i.e., indirect effect) for 50% [- 0.03 (- 0.17, 0.10)], 60% [- 0.01 (- 0.17, 0.17)], or 70% [0.07 (- 0.09, 0.28)] sites, nor of TRAD-TRAIN for 50% [- 0.11 (- 0.48,0.29)], 60% [- 0.04 (- 0.42, 0.40)], and 70% sites [0.17 (- 0.23,0.58)]. CONCLUSION: Training-induced changes in muscle thickness do not appear to appreciably mediate training-induced changes in the strength of untrained individuals during the first 6 weeks of training.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the role of muscle thickness changes on changes in strength following 6 weeks of unaccustomed resistance training, via retrospective analysis. METHODS: 151 participants completed 6 weeks of no intervention (CONTROL), one-repetition maximum training (1RM-TRAIN), or traditional resistance training (TRAD-TRAIN). Groups were assigned by covariate adaptive randomization. 1RM-TRAIN and TRAD-TRAIN performed elbow flexion exercise on the dominant arm 3 times/week. One-repetition maximum strength and muscle thickness (B-mode ultrasound at 50, 60, and 70% of the anterior upper arm) were assessed pre- and post-training. Direct and indirect effects on strength via each training modality were quantified relative to CONTROL using indicator-coded, change-score mediation analyses for each muscle thickness site. Values are presented as regression coefficients (95% CI). RESULTS: The effect of 1RM-TRAIN on muscle thickness was greater than CONTROL for 60% [0.09 (0.01, 0.17) cm] and 70% [0.09 (0.01,0.18) cm] models. All muscle thickness changes for TRAD-TRAIN were greater than CONTROL: 50% [0.24 (0.16, 0.33) cm], 60% [0.25 (0.17, 0.33) cm], 70% [0.23 (0.14, 0.32) cm]. All direct effects on strength were greater for 1RM-TRAIN versus CONTROL: 50% [1.90 (1.21, 2.58) kg], 60% [1.89 (1.19, 2.58) kg], 70% [1.81 (1.12, 2.51) kg]; and TRAD-TRAIN versus CONTROL: 50% [2.04 (1.29, 2.80) kg], 60% [1.98 (1.22, 2.75) kg], 70% [1.79 (1.05, 2.53) kg]. Compared to CONTROL, there was no indication of an effect of 1RM-TRAIN on strength through muscle thickness (i.e., indirect effect) for 50% [- 0.03 (- 0.17, 0.10)], 60% [- 0.01 (- 0.17, 0.17)], or 70% [0.07 (- 0.09, 0.28)] sites, nor of TRAD-TRAIN for 50% [- 0.11 (- 0.48,0.29)], 60% [- 0.04 (- 0.42, 0.40)], and 70% sites [0.17 (- 0.23,0.58)]. CONCLUSION: Training-induced changes in muscle thickness do not appear to appreciably mediate training-induced changes in the strength of untrained individuals during the first 6 weeks of training.
Authors: Jeremy P Loenneke; Scott J Dankel; Zachary W Bell; Samuel L Buckner; Kevin T Mattocks; Matthew B Jessee; Takashi Abe Journal: Med Hypotheses Date: 2019-02-13 Impact factor: 1.538
Authors: Kevin T Mattocks; Samuel L Buckner; Matthew B Jessee; Scott J Dankel; J Grant Mouser; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Samuel L Buckner; Scott J Dankel; Kevin T Mattocks; Matthew B Jessee; J Grant Mouser; Brittany R Counts; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: Muscle Nerve Date: 2016-10-07 Impact factor: 3.217
Authors: Scott J Dankel; Zachary W Bell; Robert W Spitz; Vickie Wong; Ricardo B Viana; Raksha N Chatakondi; Samuel L Buckner; Matthew B Jessee; Kevin T Mattocks; J Grant Mouser; Takashi Abe; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: Appl Physiol Nutr Metab Date: 2019-09-25 Impact factor: 2.665
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: Moacir Marocolo; Bernardo N Ide; Mario Antonio Moura Simim; Luis Filipe Moutinho Leitão; Dustin J Oranchuk; Clarkson P C Santos; Bruno V C Silva; Gustavo R Mota Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 4.566