Are muscle fibres of body builders intrinsically weaker? A comparison with single fibres of aged-matched controls

Long-Term Resistance Trained Human Muscles Have More Fibers, More Myofibrils, and Tighter Myofilament Packing Than Untrained

INTRODUCTION

Increases in skeletal muscle size occur in response to prolonged exposure to resistance training that is typically ascribed to increased muscle fiber size. Whether muscle fiber number also changes remains controversial, and a paucity of data exists about myofibrillar structure. This cross-sectional study compared muscle fiber and myofibril characteristics in long-term resistance-trained (LRT) versus untrained (UNT) individuals.

METHODS

The maximal anatomical cross-sectional area (ACSAmax) of the biceps brachii muscle was measured by magnetic resonance imaging in 16 LRT (5.9 ± 3.5 yr' experience) and 13 UNT males. A muscle biopsy was taken from the biceps brachii to measure muscle fiber area, myofibril area, and myosin spacing. Muscle fiber number, and myofibril number in total and per fiber were estimated by dividing ACSAmax by muscle fiber area or myofibril area, and muscle fiber area by myofibril area, respectively.

RESULTS

Compared with UNT, LRT individuals had greater ACSAmax (+70%, P < 0.001), fiber area (+29%, P = 0.028), fiber number (+34%, P = 0.013), and myofibril number per fiber (+49%, P = 0.034) and in total (+105%, P < 0.001). LRT individuals also had smaller myosin spacing (-7%, P = 0.004; i.e., greater packing density) and a tendency toward smaller myofibril area (-16%, P = 0.074). ACSAmax was positively correlated with fiber area ( r = 0.526), fiber number ( r = 0.445), and myofibril number (in total r = 0.873 and per fiber r = 0.566), and negatively correlated with myofibril area ( r = -0.456) and myosin spacing ( r = -0.382) (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The larger muscles of LRT individuals exhibited more fibers in cross-section and larger muscle fibers, which contained substantially more total myofibrils and more packed myofilaments than UNT participants, suggesting plasticity of muscle ultrastructure.

Assumptions about the cross-sectional shape of skinned muscle fibers can distort the relationship between muscle force and cross-sectional area

Comparisons of muscle force output are often performed after normalization to muscle physiological cross-sectional area (CSA). Differences in force per CSA (i.e., specific force) suggest the presence of physiological differences in contractile function. Permeabilized mammalian skeletal muscle fibers frequently exhibit substantial declines in specific force with increasing CSA, suggesting that smaller fibers are intrinsically stronger than larger fibers of the same group. However, the potential for CSA assessment error to account for CSA-dependent differences in specific force has not received adequate attention. Assessment of fiber CSA typically involves measurement of fiber width and perhaps also height, and CSA is calculated by assuming the cross sections are either circular or elliptical with major and minor axes aligned with the optical measurement system. Differences between the assumed and real cross-sectional shapes would cause variability in the ratio of assessed CSA (aCSA) to real CSA (rCSA). This variability can insidiously bias aCSA such that large aCSAs typically overstate rCSAs of the fibers they represent, and small aCSAs typically understate the rCSAs of the fibers they represent. As aCSA is the denominator for the specific force calculation, scatterplots of specific force versus aCSA would be expected to show declines in specific force as aCSA increases without a corresponding effect in a scatterplot of specific force versus rCSA. When comparing active and passive muscle forces between data subsets defined by aCSA, the impact of CSA assessment error should be considered before exploring other physiological mechanisms.

Regional muscle features and their association with knee extensors force production at a single joint angle

This study aimed (i) to investigate the role of regional characteristics of the knee extensors muscles (vastus lateralis: VL, vastus intermedius: VI and rectus femoris: RF) in determining maximum-voluntary force (MVF); and (ii) to understand which regional parameter of muscle structure would best predict MVF. Muscle architecture (e.g., pennation angle and fascicle length), muscle volume (Vol), anatomical (ACSA) and physiological cross-sectional-area (PCSA) were measured in the proximal (0-33% of the muscle length), middle (33-66% of the muscle length) and distal (66-100% of the muscle length) portions of each muscle in fifteen healthy males using ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). Knee extensors force was calculated in isometric condition at a single knee joint angle of 90 degrees. Regional ACSA, Vol and PCSA were correlated with MVF production. Regional muscle geometry showed no significant correlations with MVF. Among regions, the middle portion of each muscle was largely correlated with MVF compared to all the other regions (distal and proximal). To understand which regional structural parameter best predicted MVF, a stepwise multiple linear regression was performed. This model showed a significant explanatory power (P < 0.001, R2 = 0.76, adjusted R2  = 0.71), including muscle Vol collected in the mid portions of VL and RF. Even if no significant differences were reported between Vol, PCSA and ACSA in determining MVF, our results showed that the RF and VL volume collected in the middle portion of the muscle length are strong determinants of MVF produced by the knee extensors at 90 degrees joint angle.

Influence of 4 weeks of downhill running on calcium sensitivity of rat single muscle fibers

Improved Ca2+ sensitivity has been suggested as a mechanism behind enhancements in muscle mechanical function following eccentric training. However, little is known regarding the effects of eccentric training on single muscle fiber Ca2+ sensitivity. Adult male Sprague-Dawley rats (sacrificial age ~18 weeks; mass = 400.1 ± 34.8 g) were assigned to an eccentric training (n = 5) or sedentary control group (n = 6). Eccentric training consisted of 4 weeks of weighted downhill running 3×/week at a 15° decline and 16 m/min for 35 min per day in 5-min bouts. After sacrifice, vastus intermedius single muscle fibers were dissected, chemically permeabilized, and stored until testing. Fibers (n = 63) were isolated, and standard Ca2+ sensitivity, force, rate of force redevelopment (ktr ), and active instantaneous stiffness tests were performed using [Ca2+ ] ranging from 7.0 to 4.5. Following all mechanical testing, fiber type was determined using SDS-PAGE. There was no difference in pCa50 (i.e., [Ca2+ ] needed to elicit half of maximal force) between groups or between fiber types. However, when comparing normalized force across pCa values, fibers from the control group produced greater forces than fibers from the trained group at lower Ca2+ concentrations (p < 0.05), and this was most evident for Type I fibers (p = 0.002). Type II fibers produced faster (p < 0.001) ktr than Type I fibers, but there were no differences in absolute force, normalized force, or other measures of mechanical function between fibers from the trained and control groups. These findings indicate that eccentric training does not appear to improve single muscle fiber Ca2+ sensitivity.

Frequent Manipulation of Resistance Training Variables Promotes Myofibrillar Spacing Changes in Resistance-Trained Individuals

We sought to determine if manipulating resistance training (RT) variables differentially altered the expression of select sarcoplasmic and myofibril proteins as well as myofibrillar spacing in myofibers. Resistance-trained men (n = 20; 26 ± 3 years old) trained for 8 weeks where a randomized leg performed either a standard (CON) or variable RT protocol (VAR: manipulation of load, volume, muscle action, and rest intervals at each RT session). A pre-training (PRE) vastus lateralis biopsy was obtained from a randomized single leg, and biopsies were obtained from both legs 96 h following the last training bout. The sarcoplasmic protein pool was assayed for proteins involved in energy metabolism, and the myofibril protein pool was assayed for relative myosin heavy chain (MHC) and actin protein abundances. Sections were also histologically analyzed to obtain myofibril spacing characteristics. VAR resulted in ~12% greater volume load (VL) compared to CON (p < 0.001). The mean fiber cross-sectional area increased following both RT protocols [CON: 14.6% (775.5 μm²), p = 0.006; VAR: 13.9% (743.2 μm²), p = 0.01 vs. PRE for both], but without significant differences between protocols (p = 0.79). Neither RT protocol affected a majority of assayed proteins related to energy metabolism, but both training protocols increased hexokinase 2 protein levels and decreased a mitochondrial beta-oxidation marker (VLCAD protein; p < 0.05). Citrate synthase activity levels increased with CON RT (p < 0.05), but not VAR RT. The relative abundance of MHC (summed isoforms) decreased with both training protocols (p < 0.05). However, the relative abundance of actin protein (summed isoforms) decreased with VAR only (13.5 and 9.0%, respectively; p < 0.05). A decrease in percent area occupied by myofibrils was observed from PRE to VAR (−4.87%; p = 0.048), but not for the CON (4.53%; p = 0.979). In contrast, there was an increase in percent area occupied by non-contractile space from PRE to VAR (10.14%; p = 0.048), but not PRE to CON (0.72%; p = 0.979). In conclusion, while both RT protocols increased muscle fiber hypertrophy, a higher volume-load where RT variables were frequently manipulated increased non-contractile spacing in resistance-trained individuals.

Implementing Ultrasound Imaging for the Assessment of Muscle and Tendon Properties in Elite Sports: Practical Aspects, Methodological Considerations and Future Directions

Ultrasound (US) imaging has been widely used in both research and clinical settings to evaluate the morphological and mechanical properties of muscle and tendon. In elite sports scenarios, a regular assessment of such properties has great potential, namely for testing the response to training, detecting athletes at higher risks of injury, screening athletes for structural abnormalities related to current or future musculoskeletal complaints, and monitoring their return to sport after a musculoskeletal injury. However, several practical and methodological aspects of US techniques should be considered when applying this technology in the elite sports context. Therefore, this narrative review aims to (1) present the principal US measures and field of applications in the context of elite sports; (2) to discuss, from a methodological perspective, the strengths and shortcomings of US imaging for the assessment of muscle and tendon properties; and (3) to provide future directions for research and application.

Molecular Mechanisms of Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy

Skeletal muscle hypertrophy can be induced by hormones and growth factors acting directly as positive regulators of muscle growth or indirectly by neutralizing negative regulators, and by mechanical signals mediating the effect of resistance exercise. Muscle growth during hypertrophy is controlled at the translational level, through the stimulation of protein synthesis, and at the transcriptional level, through the activation of ribosomal RNAs and muscle-specific genes. mTORC1 has a central role in the regulation of both protein synthesis and ribosomal biogenesis. Several transcription factors and co-activators, including MEF2, SRF, PGC-1α4, and YAP promote the growth of the myofibers. Satellite cell proliferation and fusion is involved in some but not all muscle hypertrophy models.

Emphasizing Task-Specific Hypertrophy to Enhance Sequential Strength and Power Performance

While strength is indeed a skill, most discussions have primarily considered structural adaptations rather than ultrastructural augmentation to improve performance. Altering the structural component of the muscle is often the aim of hypertrophic training, yet not all hypertrophy is equal; such alterations are dependent upon how the muscle adapts to the training stimuli and overall training stress. When comparing bodybuilders to strength and power athletes such as powerlifters, weightlifters, and throwers, while muscle size may be similar, the ability to produce force and power is often inequivalent. Thus, performance differences go beyond structural changes and may be due to the muscle's ultrastructural constituents and training induced adaptations. Relative to potentiating strength and power performances, eliciting specific ultrastructural changes should be a variable of interest during hypertrophic training phases. By focusing on task-specific hypertrophy, it may be possible to achieve an optimal amount of hypertrophy while deemphasizing metabolic and aerobic components that are often associated with high-volume training. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to briefly address different types of hypertrophy and provide directions for practitioners who are aiming to achieve optimal rather than maximal hypertrophy, as it relates to altering ultrastructural muscular components, to potentiate strength and power performance.