Gaining more from doing less? The effects of a one-week deload period during supervised resistance training on muscular adaptations

Background

Based on emerging evidence that brief periods of cessation from resistance training (RT) may re-sensitize muscle to anabolic stimuli, we aimed to investigate the effects of a 1-week deload interval at the midpoint of a 9-week RT program on muscular adaptations in resistance-trained individuals.

Methods

Thirty-nine young men (n = 29) and women (n = 10) were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 experimental, parallel groups: An experimental group that abstained from RT for 1 week at the midpoint of a 9-week, high-volume RT program (DELOAD) or a traditional training group that performed the same RT program continuously over the study period (TRAD). The lower body routines were directly supervised by the research staff while upper body training was carried out in an unsupervised fashion. Muscle growth outcomes included assessments of muscle thickness along proximal, mid and distal regions of the middle and lateral quadriceps femoris as well as the mid-region of the triceps surae. Adaptions in lower body isometric and dynamic strength, local muscular endurance of the quadriceps, and lower body muscle power were also assessed.

Results

Results indicated no appreciable differences in increases of lower body muscle size, local endurance, and power between groups. Alternatively, TRAD showed greater improvements in both isometric and dynamic lower body strength compared to DELOAD. Additionally, TRAD showed some slight psychological benefits as assessed by the readiness to train questionnaire over DELOAD.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our findings suggest that a 1-week deload period at the midpoint of a 9-week RT program appears to negatively influence measures of lower body muscle strength but has no effect on lower body hypertrophy, power or local muscular endurance.

Supervision during resistance training positively influences muscular adaptations in resistance-trained individuals

This study compared the effects of supervised versus unsupervised resistance training (RT) on measures of muscle strength and hypertrophy in resistance-trained individuals. Thirty-six young men and women were randomly assigned to one of two experimental, parallel groups to complete an 8-week RT programme: One group received direct supervision for their RT sessions (SUP); the other group performed the same RT programme in an unsupervised manner (UNSUP). Programme variables were kept constant between groups. We obtained pre- and post-study assessments of body composition via multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (MF-BIA), muscle thickness of the upper and lower limbs via ultrasound, 1 repetition maximum (RM) in the back squat and bench press, isometric knee extension strength, and countermovement jump (CMJ) height. Results showed the SUP group generally achieved larger increases in muscle thickness for the triceps brachii, all sites of the rectus femoris, and the proximal region of the vastus lateralis. MF-BIA indicated increases in lean mass favoured SUP. Squat 1RM was greater for SUP; bench press 1RM and isometric knee extension were similar between conditions. CMJ increases modestly favoured UNSUP. In conclusion, our findings suggest that supervised RT promotes greater muscular adaptations and enhances exercise adherence in young, resistance-trained individuals.

Myoelectric activity during electromagnetic resistance alone and in combination with variable resistance or eccentric overload

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of electromagnetic resistance alone, as well as in combination with variable resistance or accentuated eccentric methods, with traditional dynamic constant external resistance exercise on myoelectric activity during elbow flexion. The study employed a within-participant randomized, cross-over design whereby 16 young, resistance-trained male and female volunteers performed elbow flexion exercise under each of the following conditions: using a dumbbell (DB); using a commercial electromagnetic resistance device (ELECTRO); variable resistance (VR) using a setting on the device that attempts to match the level of resistance to the human strength curve, and; eccentric overload (EO) using a setting on the device that increases the load by 50% on the eccentric portion of each repetition. Surface electromyography (sEMG) was obtained for the biceps brachii, brachioradialis and anterior deltoid on each of the conditions. Participants performed the conditions at their predetermined 10 repetition maximum. " The order of performance for the conditions was counterbalanced, with trials separated by a 10-min recovery period. The sEMG was synced to a motion capture system to assess sEMG amplitude at elbow joint angles of 30°, 50°, 70°, 90°, 110°, with amplitude normalized to the maximal activation. The anterior deltoid showed the largest differences in amplitude between conditions, where median estimates indicated greater concentric sEMG amplitude (~ 7-10%) with EO, ELECTRO and VR compared with DB. Concentric biceps brachii sEMG amplitude was similar between conditions. In contrast, results indicated a greater eccentric amplitude with DB compared to ELECTRO and VR, but unlikely to exceed a 5% difference. Data indicated a greater concentric and eccentric brachioradialis sEMG amplitude with DB compared to all other conditions, but differences were unlikely to exceed 5%. The electromagnetic device tended to produce greater amplitudes in the anterior deltoid, while DB tended to produce greater amplitudes in the brachioradialis; amplitude for the biceps brachii was relatively similar between conditions. Overall, any observed differences were relatively modest, equating to magnitudes of ~ 5% and not likely greater than 10%. These differences would seem to be of minimal practical significance.

Progressive overload without progressing load? The effects of load or repetition progression on muscular adaptations

Background

Progressive overload is a principle of resistance training exercise program design that typically relies on increasing load to increase neuromuscular demand to facilitate further adaptations. However, little attention has been given to another way of increasing demand-increasing the number of repetitions.

Objective

This study aimed to compare the effects of two resistance training programs: (1) increasing load while keeping repetition range constant vs (2) increasing repetitions while keeping load constant. We aimed to compare the effects of these programs on lower body muscle hypertrophy, muscle strength, and muscle endurance in resistance-trained individuals over an 8-week study period.

Methods

Forty-three participants with at least 1 year of consistent lower body resistance training experience were randomly assigned to one of two experimental, parallel groups: A group that aimed to increase load while keeping repetitions constant (LOAD: n = 22; 13 men, nine women) or a group that aimed to increase repetitions while keeping load constant (REPS: n = 21; 14 men, seven women). Subjects performed four sets of four lower body exercises (back squat, leg extension, straight-leg calf raise, and seated calf raise) twice per week. We assessed one repetition maximum (1RM) in the Smith machine squat, muscular endurance in the leg extension, countermovement jump height, and muscle thickness along the quadriceps and calf muscles. Between-group effects were estimated using analyses of covariance, adjusted for pre-intervention scores and sex.

Results

Rectus femoris growth modestly favored REPS (adjusted effect estimate (CI_90%), sum of sites: 2.8 mm [-0.5, 5.8]). Alternatively, dynamic strength increases slightly favored LOAD (2.0 kg [-2.4, 7.8]), with differences of questionable practical significance. No other notable between-group differences were found across outcomes (muscle thicknesses, <1 mm; endurance, <1%; countermovement jump, 0.1 cm; body fat, <1%; leg segmental lean mass, 0.1 kg), with narrow CIs for most outcomes.

Conclusion

Both progressions of repetitions and load appear to be viable strategies for enhancing muscular adaptations over an 8-week training cycle, which provides trainers and trainees with another promising approach to programming resistance training.

Insulin Receptor Signaling in POMC, but Not AgRP, Neurons Controls Adipose Tissue Insulin Action

Insulin is a key regulator of adipose tissue lipolysis, and impaired adipose tissue insulin action results in unrestrained lipolysis and lipotoxicity, which are hallmarks of the metabolic syndrome and diabetes. Insulin regulates adipose tissue metabolism through direct effects on adipocytes and through signaling in the central nervous system by dampening sympathetic outflow to the adipose tissue. Here we examined the role of insulin signaling in agouti-related protein (AgRP) and pro-opiomelanocortin (POMC) neurons in regulating hepatic and adipose tissue insulin action. Mice lacking the insulin receptor in AgRP neurons (AgRP IR KO) exhibited impaired hepatic insulin action because the ability of insulin to suppress hepatic glucose production (hGP) was reduced, but the ability of insulin to suppress lipolysis was unaltered. To the contrary, in POMC IR KO mice, insulin lowered hGP but failed to suppress adipose tissue lipolysis. High-fat diet equally worsened glucose tolerance in AgRP and POMC IR KO mice and their respective controls but increased hepatic triglyceride levels only in POMC IR KO mice, consistent with impaired lipolytic regulation resulting in fatty liver. These data suggest that although insulin signaling in AgRP neurons is important in regulating glucose metabolism, insulin signaling in POMC neurons controls adipose tissue lipolysis and prevents high-fat diet-induced hepatic steatosis.

How does leptin restore euglycemia in insulin-deficient diabetes?

Insulin replacement is the cornerstone of type 1 diabetes (T1D) treatment; however, glycemic control remains a challenge. Leptin has been shown to effectively restore euglycemia in rodent models of T1D; however, the mechanism or mechanisms by which leptin exerts glycemic control are unclear. In this issue of the JCI, Perry and colleagues provide evidence that suppression of lipolysis is a key facet of leptin-mediated restoration of euglycemia. However, more work remains to be done to fully understand the antidiabetic mechanisms of leptin.