Dissociated Time Course of Indirect Markers of Muscle Damage Recovery Between Single-Joint and Multi-joint Exercises in Resistance-Trained Men

Resistance Exercise Sessions Comprising Multijoint vs. Single-Joint Exercises Result in Similar Metabolic and Hormonal Responses, But Distinct Levels of Muscle Damage in Trained Men

ABSTRACT

Barbosa, PH, Bueno de Camargo, JB, Jonas de Oliveira, J, Reis Barbosa, CG, Santos da Silva, A, Dos-Santos, JW, Verlengia, R, Barreira, J, Braz, TV, and Lopes, CR. Resistance exercise sessions comprising multijoint vs. single-joint exercises result in similar metabolic and hormonal responses, but distinct levels of muscle damage in trained men. J Strength Cond Res 38(5): 842-847, 2024-Resistance-type exercise (RE) elicits distinct acute metabolic and hormonal responses, which can be modulated by the manipulation of training variables. The purpose of this study was to compare the metabolic (blood lactate and estimated lactic anaerobic system energy expenditure) and hormonal (growth hormone [GH]) responses to RE sessions composed exclusively of multijoint (MULTI) or single-joint (SINGLE) exercises. Assessments of creatine kinase (CK) levels were also performed. In a crossover design, 10 recreationally resistance-trained men (age: 26.9 ± 3.0 years, total body mass: 83.2 ± 13.8 kg; height: 176 ± 7.0 cm; training experience: 5.5 ± 2.4 years) were randomly submitted to both protocols. Blood collections were made pre, 3 minutes after, and 36 hours after each experimental session. No significant difference between MULTI vs. SINGLE was observed for the rises in blood lactate (p = 0.057) and GH (p = 0.285) levels. For CK, a significant difference between the protocols was noted, in which MULTI resulted in significant rises after 3 minutes (p = 0.017) and 36 hours (p = 0.043) compared with SINGLE. In conclusion, the findings of this study suggest that resistance-trained individuals display similar metabolic and hormonal responses when performing MULTI and SINGLE exercise protocols. Also, RE sessions comprising MULTI exercises induce a higher magnitude of muscle damage, which may require a longer recovery period compared with SINGLE.

Towards an improved understanding of proximity-to-failure in resistance training and its influence on skeletal muscle hypertrophy, neuromuscular fatigue, muscle damage, and perceived discomfort: A scoping review

While proximity-to-failure is considered an important resistance training (RT) prescription variable, its influence on physiological adaptations and short-term responses to RT is uncertain. Given the ambiguity in the literature, a scoping review was undertaken to summarise evidence for the influence of proximity-to-failure on muscle hypertrophy, neuromuscular fatigue, muscle damage and perceived discomfort. Literature searching was performed according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines and identified three themes of studies comparing either: i) RT performed to momentary muscular failure versus non-failure, ii) RT performed to set failure (defined as anything other than momentary muscular failure) versus non-failure, and iii) RT performed to different velocity loss thresholds. The findings highlight that no consensus definition for "failure" exists in the literature, and the proximity-to-failure achieved in "non-failure" conditions is often ambiguous and variable across studies. This poses challenges when deriving practical recommendations for manipulating proximity-to-failure in RT to achieve desired outcomes. Based on the limited available evidence, RT to set failure is likely not superior to non-failure RT for inducing muscle hypertrophy, but may exacerbate neuromuscular fatigue, muscle damage, and post-set perceived discomfort versus non-failure RT. Together, these factors may impair post-exercise recovery and subsequent performance, and may also negatively influence long-term adherence to RT.KEY POINTS This scoping review identified three broad themes of studies investigating proximity-to-failure in RT, based on the specific definition of set failure used (and therefore the research question being examined), to improve the validity of study comparisons and interpretations.There is no consensus definition for set failure in RT, and the proximity-to-failure achieved during non-failure RT is often unclear and varies both within and between studies, which together poses challenges when interpreting study findings and deriving practical recommendations regarding the influence of RT proximity-to-failure on muscle hypertrophy and other short-term responses.Based on the limited available evidence, performing RT to set failure is likely not superior to non-failure RT to maximise muscle hypertrophy, but the optimal proximity to failure in RT for muscle hypertrophy is unclear and may be moderated by other RT variables (e.g., load, volume-load). Also, RT performed to set failure likely induces greater neuromuscular fatigue, muscle damage, and perceived discomfort than non-failure RT, which may negatively influence RT performance, post-RT recovery, and long-term adherence.