Leatha A Clark1, David W Russ2, Dallin Tavoian3, W David Arnold4, Timothy D Law5, Christopher R France6, Brian C Clark7. 1. Ohio Musculoskeletal and Neurological Institute, Ohio University, Athens, OH, USA; Department of Biomedical Sciences, Ohio University, Athens, OH, USA. Electronic address: clarkl2@ohio.edu. 2. School of Physical Therapy & Rehabilitation Sciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA. Electronic address: druss2@usf.edu. 3. Ohio Musculoskeletal and Neurological Institute, Ohio University, Athens, OH, USA. Electronic address: dt114412@ohio.edu. 4. Department of Neurology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA. Electronic address: william.arnold@osumc.edu. 5. Ohio Musculoskeletal and Neurological Institute, Ohio University, Athens, OH, USA. Electronic address: tl208520@ohio.edu. 6. Ohio Musculoskeletal and Neurological Institute, Ohio University, Athens, OH, USA; Department of Psychology, Ohio University, Athens, OH, USA. Electronic address: france@ohio.edu. 7. Ohio Musculoskeletal and Neurological Institute, Ohio University, Athens, OH, USA; Department of Biomedical Sciences, Ohio University, Athens, OH, USA. Electronic address: clarkb2@ohio.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Older adults display wide individual variability (heterogeneity) in the effects of resistance exercise training on muscle strength. The mechanisms driving this heterogeneity are poorly understood. Understanding of these mechanisms could permit development of more targeted interventions and/or improved identification of individuals likely to respond to resistance training interventions. Thus, this study assessed potential physiological factors that may contribute to strength response heterogeneity in older adults: neural activation, muscle hypertrophy, and muscle contractility. METHODS: In 24 older adults (72.3 ± 6.8 years), we measured the following parameters before and after 12 weeks of progressive resistance exercise training: i) isometric leg extensor strength; ii) isokinetic (60°/sec) leg extensor strength; iii) voluntary (neural) activation by comparing voluntary and electrically-stimulated muscle forces (i.e., superimposed doublet technique); iv) muscle hypertrophy via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) estimates of regional lean tissue mass; and v) intrinsic contractility by electrically-elicited twitch and doublet torques. We examined associations between physiological factors (baseline values and relative change) and the relative change in isometric and isokinetic muscle strength. RESULTS: Notably, changes in quadriceps contractility were positively associated with the relative improvement in isokinetic (r = 0.37-0.46, p ≤ 0.05), but not isometric strength (r = 0.09-0.21). Change in voluntary activation did not exhibit a significant association with the relative improvements in either isometric or isokinetic strength (r = 0.35 and 0.33, respectively; p > 0.05). Additionally, change in thigh lean mass was not significantly associated with relative improvement in isometric or isokinetic strength (r = 0.09 and -0.02, respectively; p > 0.05). Somewhat surprising was the lack of association between exercise-induced changes in isometric and isokinetic strength (r = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: The strength response to resistance exercise in older adults appears to be contraction-type dependent. Therefore, future investigations should consider obtaining multiple measures of muscle strength to ensure that strength adaptations are comprehensively assessed. Changes in lean mass did not explain the heterogeneity in strength response for either contraction type, and the data regarding the influence of voluntary activation was inconclusive. For isokinetic contraction, the strength response was moderately explained by between-subject variance in the resistance-exercise induced changes in muscle contractility.
BACKGROUND: Older adults display wide individual variability (heterogeneity) in the effects of resistance exercise training on muscle strength. The mechanisms driving this heterogeneity are poorly understood. Understanding of these mechanisms could permit development of more targeted interventions and/or improved identification of individuals likely to respond to resistance training interventions. Thus, this study assessed potential physiological factors that may contribute to strength response heterogeneity in older adults: neural activation, muscle hypertrophy, and muscle contractility. METHODS: In 24 older adults (72.3 ± 6.8 years), we measured the following parameters before and after 12 weeks of progressive resistance exercise training: i) isometric leg extensor strength; ii) isokinetic (60°/sec) leg extensor strength; iii) voluntary (neural) activation by comparing voluntary and electrically-stimulated muscle forces (i.e., superimposed doublet technique); iv) muscle hypertrophy via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) estimates of regional lean tissue mass; and v) intrinsic contractility by electrically-elicited twitch and doublet torques. We examined associations between physiological factors (baseline values and relative change) and the relative change in isometric and isokinetic muscle strength. RESULTS: Notably, changes in quadriceps contractility were positively associated with the relative improvement in isokinetic (r = 0.37-0.46, p ≤ 0.05), but not isometric strength (r = 0.09-0.21). Change in voluntary activation did not exhibit a significant association with the relative improvements in either isometric or isokinetic strength (r = 0.35 and 0.33, respectively; p > 0.05). Additionally, change in thigh lean mass was not significantly associated with relative improvement in isometric or isokinetic strength (r = 0.09 and -0.02, respectively; p > 0.05). Somewhat surprising was the lack of association between exercise-induced changes in isometric and isokinetic strength (r = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: The strength response to resistance exercise in older adults appears to be contraction-type dependent. Therefore, future investigations should consider obtaining multiple measures of muscle strength to ensure that strength adaptations are comprehensively assessed. Changes in lean mass did not explain the heterogeneity in strength response for either contraction type, and the data regarding the influence of voluntary activation was inconclusive. For isokinetic contraction, the strength response was moderately explained by between-subject variance in the resistance-exercise induced changes in muscle contractility.
Authors: E Dent; J E Morley; A J Cruz-Jentoft; H Arai; S B Kritchevsky; J Guralnik; J M Bauer; M Pahor; B C Clark; M Cesari; J Ruiz; C C Sieber; M Aubertin-Leheudre; D L Waters; R Visvanathan; F Landi; D T Villareal; R Fielding; C W Won; O Theou; F C Martin; B Dong; J Woo; L Flicker; L Ferrucci; R A Merchant; L Cao; T Cederholm; S M L Ribeiro; L Rodríguez-Mañas; S D Anker; J Lundy; L M Gutiérrez Robledo; I Bautmans; I Aprahamian; J M G A Schols; M Izquierdo; B Vellas Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2018 Impact factor: 4.075
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: Shalender Bhasin; Thomas G Travison; Todd M Manini; Sheena Patel; Karol M Pencina; Roger A Fielding; Jay M Magaziner; Anne B Newman; Douglas P Kiel; Cyrus Cooper; Jack M Guralnik; Jane A Cauley; Hidenori Arai; Brian C Clark; Francesco Landi; Laura A Schaap; Suzette L Pereira; Daniel Rooks; Jean Woo; Linda J Woodhouse; Ellen Binder; Todd Brown; Michelle Shardell; Quian-Li Xue; Ralph B DʼAgostino; Denise Orwig; Greg Gorsicki; Rosaly Correa-De-Araujo; Peggy M Cawthon Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-03-09 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Anthony J Bakker; Tanya R Cully; Catherine D Wingate; Christopher J Barclay; Bradley S Launikonis Journal: J Gen Physiol Date: 2017-02-16 Impact factor: 4.086
Authors: Matthew B Jessee; Samuel L Buckner; J Grant Mouser; Kevin T Mattocks; Scott J Dankel; Takashi Abe; Zachary W Bell; John P Bentley; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2018-10-16 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Felicia A Hartono; Patrick W Martin-Arrowsmith; Wouter M Peeters; Tyler A Churchward-Venne Journal: Sports Med Date: 2022-02-03 Impact factor: 11.928
Authors: Steven J O'Bryan; Catherine Giuliano; Mary N Woessner; Sara Vogrin; Cassandra Smith; Gustavo Duque; Itamar Levinger Journal: Sports Med Date: 2022-05-24 Impact factor: 11.928