Treinamento de Força e Hipertrofia HOMEOSTASE

9/24/14&
Modelo&de&Ganhos&de&Força&
Musculação&para&Academia:&
treinamento&de&força&e&hipertrofia&&
&
Prof.&Dr.&Carlos&Ugrinowitsh&
Sale,&1992&
Unidade Motora
Placa
Motora
Neurônio
Motor
Fibra
Muscular
1&
9/24/14&
Limiar&de&A*vação
Alta&Força
Alta
Alta&Potência
Hipertrofia&Muscular&
1RM
5RM
Moderada
10&RM
15&RM
Baixa
20&RM
Unidade&Motora&
Tipo&I
&Tipo&II
Tesch&et&al.,&JSCR&&1998
Goldspink,&1992
Músculo - Idoso
Músculo - Jovem
Proximal
Proximal
Medial
Medial
Distal
Distal
2&
9/24/14&
Músculo&K&Treino&
Síntese&Proteíca&
Tang&et&al.,&2008&
Vias&do&Trofismo&Celular&
Glass&et&al.,&2005&
KNIGHT&&&&KOTHARY&2011&
3&
9/24/14&
Células Satélites
Domínio Nuclear e Hipertrofia
•  Cada núcleo é responsável por um
determinado volume de sarcoplasma.
Essa proporção é mantida constante
mesmo com a hipertrofia
•  Então, para haver hipertrofia é necessário
primeiro adicionar núcleo à célula
muscular
•  O núcleo irá aumentar a síntese das
proteínas contráteis
Deschenes & Kraemer, 2002
Domínio Mionuclear Hipertrofia
Alterações com o Treinamento de
Força
•  Para que haja
hipertrofia as células
satélites precisam
adicionar núcleo ás
células musculares
para que haja um
aumento da síntese
protéica
Hawke, 2005
Kadi et al., 2004
4&
9/24/14&
Alterações com o Treinamento de
Força
•  Somente&quando&a&hipertrofia&foi&maior&que&&&
~&20%&é&que&as&células&satélites&par]ciparam&
do&processo&de&hipertrofia&
Kadi et al., 2004
Fatores&que&“&parecem”&gerar&
hipertrofia&muscular&
• 
• 
• 
• 
Dano&muscular&
Hipóxia&
Alongamento&
Escmulo&mecânico&
Volume&Total&
•  Séries&x&repe*ções&x&carga&(kg)&
3&x&10&x&100&kg&=&3.000&kg&
ACSM,&2009&
5&
9/24/14&
Excêntrico x Concêntrico
Ações excêntricas
produzem mais força,
com ativação
muscular semelhante
Linnamo et al., 2000
Relação Força - Comprimento
•  Ações musculares excêntricas usam tanto
a força produzida ativa quanto
passivamente
•  A força passiva é produzida pelo tecido
conectivo que envolve o tecido muscular,
proteínas do citoesqueleto e tendões
Tensão Ativa e Passiva
Miosina
Força (N)
Força (% máximo)
Actina
Por que somos capazes de produzir mais
tensão em ações musculares excêntricas do
que concêntricas?
Comprimento (cm)
Enoka, 2003
6&
9/24/14&
Ação Muscular Excêntrica
Dano Muscular
•  Marcadores Diretos
•  Então….
–  A tensão passiva pode sobrecarregar as
proteínas do citoesqueleto produzindo dano
estrutural
–  Essa sobrecarga parece ocorrer na fase
descendente da curva força-comprimento
–  O dano estrutural produz uma série de
sintomas conhecidos como Dor Muscular
Tardia
Dano Muscular – Marcadores Indiretos
•  Exercício&excêntrico&
aumenta&CK&sérica&
•  Exercício&concêntrico&não&
aumenta&CK&sérica&
–  Alterações na linha Z
–  Ruptura da desmina
•  Marcadores Indiretos
–  Perda de força
–  Edema
–  Diminuição da amplitude do movimento
–  Vazamento de proteínas intramusculares
–  Dor muscular tardia
–  Pico de torque em maior ângulo do movimento
Dano Muscular – Marcadores Indiretos
•  CK plasmática é mais
alta após exercício
excêntrico de
intensidade máxima
que submáxima (50%
max)
Linnamo et al., 2000
Nosaka & Newton, 2002
7&
9/24/14&
Marcados Indiretos de Dano e Velocidade
da Ação Excêntrica
Ações Excêntricas
80.00
•  Exercício excêntrico
veloz não produz
diferenças
70.00
*
*
60.00
Torque (N.m)
•  A acentuação da
sobrecarga excêntrica
produziu maiores
ganhos no supino que
uma sobrecarga
regular
*
Ecc60
50.00
Ecc180
40.00
–  Na diminuição da força
–  Aumento da CK
30.00
20.00
pre
pos
48
96
Time
40000.00
*
*
CK (U/L)
30000.00
Doan et al., 2002
20000.00
Ecc60
Ecc180
10000.00
0.00
Barroso et al., 2008
pre
pos
24
48
72
96
-10000.00
Tim e
Intensidade do Treinamento e Marcadores
Indiretos
Table 3: Mean and range (in the parentheses) of plasma CK activity of subjects for
the baseline (Pre) and peak values following exercise for the control, 50%1RM, 75%-1RM, 90%-1RM, and 110 %-1RM groups. * indicates a
significant (P<0.05) difference from the pre-value.
Pre
Peak
CONTROL 187 (117 - 210) 238 (153 - 356)
50%-1RM
213 (43 - 200)
535 (109 - 919)*
75%-1RM
157 (91 - 201)
668 (192 – 1353)*
90%-1RM
178 (118 - 241) 311 (240 - 518)*
110%-1RM 151 (49 - 205)
623 (317 - 3110)*
•  Intensidades distintas de supino produziram aumentos
similares na CK quando o volume total foi equalizado
(2000 kg)
Uchida&et&al.,&2009&
Dano Muscular
•  Durante a parte descendente da curva
força x coprimento, os sarcômeros não
são alongados uniformemente
•  Alguns desses sarcômeros são alongados
além do ponto de sobreposição de actina
e miosina
Friden & Liber, 2001
8&
9/24/14&
Efeito do Exercício Repetido
•  A diminuição da força muscular e os
sintomas associados ao dano muscular
após exercício excêntrico são menos
pronunciados após a segunda sessão de
exercício
Efeito do Exercício Repetido (EER)
•  Há evidências de que exercícios
excêntricos máximo e sub-máximo,
concêntrico e isométrico produzem o efeito
do exercício repetido
Lavander & Nosaka, 2008
Kim, Ugrinowitsch, Craig, 2009
Lavander & Nosaka, 2008
Diminuição da Produção de Força após
Exercício Excêntrico
Table 2 – Percentual MVIC (mean± sd) after performing 3 bouts *
p<0.05 comparing to pre-values of each bout
#
p<0.05 compared to the
same time point in bout 1
Bout
1
2
3
pre
100
(0.0)
100
(0.0)
100
(0.0)
Time
pos
48h
65.3
63.6
(8.2) *
(14.0) *
78.4
94.6
(7.0) *
(9.1) #
72.9
89.1
(16.4) *
(11.3) *#
96h
67.3
(19.2) *
102.2
(11.7) #
102.8
(11.2) #
Barroso et al., 2008
EER– Linha Z
•  Não houve ondulação
significante da linha Z
após a primeira
sessão de exercício
•  Não houve diferença
entre os gêneros
Stupka et al., 2001
9&
9/24/14&
EER- Variação de Exercício
•  A variação de exercício pode aumentar o
estresse em diferentes porções do
músculo evitando a ocorrência do EER
EER – Variação de Exercícios
•  A variação do exercício entre sessões de
treinamento não aumentou a magnitude
dos sintomas de dano muscular após a
segunda sessão
•  Essa adaptação parece ser importante já
que o dano muscular está associado à
hipertrofia muscular
Ugrinowitsch & Kim
Dano Muscular
Dano Muscular – Marcadores Diretos
Linha Z intacta
Linha Z rompida
Linha Z destruída
Crameri et al., 2007
10&
9/24/14&
Dano Muscular- Desmina
Dano Muscular – Estrutura do Sarcômero
•  Há regiões de
alargamento da linha
Z e regiões de linhas
Z duplas
•  Regiões de linha Z
duplas indicam a
formação de novos
sarcômeros
Barash et al., 2002
Dano Muscular x Remodelagem Muscular
Yu et al., 2004
Dano Muscular x Remodelagem Muscular
•  A microscopia dos sarcômeros e os dados
de actinina e desmina (não mostrados)
indicam que não há dano muscular, mas
sim aumento da remodelagem com a
adição de novos sarcômeros após o
exercício excêntrico
•  Flechas indicam
áreas em que novos
sarcômeros foram
adicionados à
miofibrila
Yu et al., 2004
Yu et al., 2004
11&
No soreness
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7
Training week
8
9
10 11
Fig. 4: Values of perceived muscle soreness as measured on a visual
analog scale (fixed-length line) assessed before each workout session
(N 7 each group; ±s.e.m.). Values remained relatively low throughout the
12-week training period for the PT group, but higher levels of soreness
were recorded in weeks 4–7 for the NA group, with a statistical difference
(*) in week 4 (P 0.022).
9#%8##.' /,1)3*' 8&*' .1%' *%&%-*%-+&$$5' *-/.-2-+&.%' =$ A:RZV>:
!%,#./%4'-.+,#&*#0'21,'&$$'3&,%-+-3&.%*'-.'%4#'*%)05'T'%4#'`X'/,1)3
*418#0'&'(#&.'@Ri'-.+,#&*#7'&.0'%4#'HG'/,1)3'&'@Vi'-.+,#&*#I
&' 3&-,8-*#' +1(3&,-*1.' 12' %4#' %81' /,1)3*' *418#0' .1' *%&%-*%-+&$
0-22#,#.+#'=X&9$# @>:
LNOMDU&'`PJ'&.&$5*-*'12'%4#'9-13*-#*'%&"#.'-.'8##"B'*418#0
%4&%'&$$'@B'=*#6#.'3,#D'&.0'*#6#.'31*%D9-13*-#*'21,'#&+4'/,1)3>'+?HG
*&(3$#*'/#.#,&%#0'+1,,#+%'3,10)+%'8-%4'(#&*),&9$#'+,1**-./'31-.%*:
H1,(&$-C#0'LNODMU&'(JHG'$#6#$*'-.+,#&*#0'-.'&$$'*)9d#+%*:'L.'%4#
`X'/,1)37'%4#'3,#f31*%'*4-2%'8&*'&'RRi'-.+,#&*#'=$ A:AA]'0#%#,(-.#0
Is 95'(#&.*'12'&'%81D%&-$#0'#D%#*%>'&.0'BRi'-.+,#&*#'-.'%4#'HG'/,1)3
muscle damage required for muscle remodeling?
677
=$ A:AA@>:'
g4-$#' %4#*#' -.+,#&*#*' 8#,#' *%&%-*%-+&$$5' *-/.-2-+&.%
Table 1. Participant demographics
pre-training
8-%4-.'91%4'/,1)3*'+1(3&,#0'8-%4'%4#-,'9&*#$-.#'6&$)#*7'8#'0#%#+%#0
Age (years)
Height (cm)
Mass (kg)
Quadriceps strength (N)
.1' 0-22#,#.+#' 9#%8##.'
p (PT)
20.3±4
172±13
68.2±7.3%41*#' *4-2%*' +1(3&,-./'
105±65 /,1)3*' =$ A:MB]
)
19.7±3
170±10
70.4±9.5
108±81
0#%#,(-.#0'%4,1)/4'&'1.#D%&-$#07'%53#
M'#D%#*%>:
ht, mass and quadriceps strength of the PT and NA groups (N 14, ±s.e.m.) before the 12-week resistance training period.
c6#,&$$7'%4#'%1%&$'81,"'#221,%'#<3#.0#0'16#,'%4#'MMD8##"'%,&-.-./
*#**-1.'8&*'-0#.%-+&$'21,'91%4'/,1)3*:'E5'+1.%,&*%7'()*+$#'0&(&/#
]!7' R!DXXPGGGXNXGPXXP'PXXPXNNNXPXD]!I
8#,#' )*#0' %1' +1(3&,#' (#&.' /,1)3' &.0' 3#,D*)9d#+%' 3,#D' 1,' 31*%D
' =3#3%-05$3,1$5$' -*1(#,&*#' G>7' @@@D93e' R!DNPG'D
.1,(&$-C#0'LNODMU&'(JHG',&%-1'$#6#$*'-.'%4#'%81'9-13*5'*&(3$#*:
8&*'*%&%-*%-+&$$5'0-22#,#.%'9#%8##.'%4#'/,1)3*'T'8-%4'%4#'HG'/,1)3
PXNNPGXPD]!7'
R!DXPNGNXX'NXPPG'PGNX'D
*418-./'0#(1.*%,&9$#'*5(3%1(*'12'()*+$#'0&(&/#'&.0'*1,#.#**7
RESULTS
J`^M]&' =,-91*1(&$' 3,1%#-.' ^M]&>7' MKZD93e
84#,#&*'%4#'`X'/,1)3'#<3#,-#.+#0'.1'*5(3%1(*'12'#-%4#,'0&(&/#
E1%4'%4#'3,#D%,&-.#0'=`X>'/,1)3'&.0'%4#'.&-6#'=HG>'/,1)3'+1(3,-*#0
NNGXNGGPGPPGGPD]!7' R!DXNPPNXP'GGGPG'D
%4,##'81(#.'&.0'21),'(#.:'X4#'(#&.'&/#7'9105'(&**7'4#-/4%'&.0
PD]!:'G33,1<-(&%#$5'@R ./'+?HG'8&*')*#0'-.'#&+4
1,'*1,#.#**:'L.0#3#.0#.%'12'$#6#$*'12'-.-%-&$'0&(&/#7'%4#'+4&./#*'-.
F)&0,-+#3*'61$)(#'8#,#'*%&%-*%-+&$$5'%4#'*&(#'21,'91%4'/,1)3*'9#21,#
+%-1.:'X4#'*&(#'(-<'3#,'+?HG'*&(3$#'=+1.%&-.-./
()*+$#'61$)(#7'/,18%4'2&+%1,'$#6#$*'&.0'F)&0,-+#3*'*%,#./%4'8#,#
%,&-.-./'=X&9$# M>:
<+#3%'`PJ'3,-(#,*>'8&*')*#0'21,'91%4'%4#'LNODMU&
L.+,#&*-./' 81,"' %1%&$*' 8#,#' 19*#,6#0' %4,1)/41)%' %4#' *%)05' 21,
' %4#' `PJ' ,).*' 12' %4#' %81' .1,(&$-C#,' %,&.*+,-3%*:
%4#'*&(#'21,'91%4'/,1)3*:
#*'=$1/'+?HG'!" +,1**-./D31-.%'+5+$#'.)(9#,>'8#,#
5'%4#'^-/4%P5+$#,'*12%8&,#'21,'#&+4'&(3$-+1.7'8-%4-.
7' )*-./' &' .-.#D31-.%' %-%,&%-1.' =VT]V ./>' 12' +1(3-$#0
12' &$$' @B' +?HG' *&(3$#*:' X81' ()$%-D,).' `PJ
#,#'3#,21,(#07'#&+4'+1.%&-.-./'#-%4#,'1.#'1,'%81'LNOD
1.#',).'12'#&+4'12'91%4'.1,(&$-C#,*:'X4#',&8'LNOD
&$)#'3#,'`PJ'#<3#,-(#.%'8&*'0-6-0#0'95'%4#'&6#,&/#
)#*'12'%4#'%81'.1,(&$-C#,*'3#,'#<3#,-(#.%7'%1'&,,-6#
.1,(&$-C#0'LPODMU&'6&$)#*'12'%4#'@B'+?HG*:'O-.&$$57
0'LNODMU&'(JHG'6&$)#*'12'%4#'%81'#<3#,-(#.%*'8#,#
#&+4'+?HG'*&(3$#'&.0'%4#'21),'+&%#/1,-#*'12'*#6#.
8#,#'+1(3&,#0:'H1%#'%4&%'8#'%11"'%4#'3,#f31*%',&%-1
LNODMU&'(JHG'$#6#$'3#,'*)9d#+%'&.0'%4#.'&6#,&/#0
&+4',#/-(#.'+&%#/1,5:
Statistical analysis
5*#*'8#,#'3#,21,(#0')*-./'%4#'g-$+1<1.'(&%+4#0'3&-,*
&(3$#'#D%#*%*'&%'&'3,#*#%'$#6#$'12'*-/.-2-+&.+#'12' A:AR:
&9$#*'%4&%'8#,#'+1(3&,#0')*-./'%4#'g-$+1<1.'%#*%'8#,#
1$)(#*' 3,#D%,&-.-./' &.0' 31*%D%,&-.-./7' &.0' -*1(#%,-+
*'3,#D%,&-.-./'&.0'31*%D%,&-.-./:'`&-,#0'%81D*&(3$#'#D
0'%1'+1(3&,#'8##"$5'0-22#,#.+#*'9#%8##.'%4#'HG'&.0
$)0-./e' (#&.' Ph' 6&$)#*7' ()*+$#' 61$)(#7' 3#,+#-6#0
-6#0'#<#,%-1.7'()*+$#'*%,#./%4'&.0'%1%&$'81,"7'&.0'%4#5
91%4'%4#'`X'&.0'HG'/,1)3I'%4#'(#&.'8##"$5'81,"'%1%&$*'(1,#'%4&.
01)9$#0'21,'91%4'/,1)3*'95'%4#'#.0'12'%4#'*%)05:'c6#,&$$7'%4#'[81,"
DISCUSSION
#F)-6&$#.%\'n%4#'%,&-.-./'#221,%'&*'0#*+,-9#0'3,#6-1)*$5'=?-99$#'#%
&$:7'@AAVI'N#,9#,'#%'&$:7'@AAV>o7'16#,'%4#'#.%-,#'BD'1,'MMD8##"'%,&-.-./
L.'%4-*'*%)057'1.#'/,1)3'12'3&,%-+-3&.%*'#<3#,-#.+#0'&.'-.-%-&$'91)%
*#**-1.' 8&*' %4#' *&(#' =]:@"MA] "p>' 21,' 91%4' /,1)3*:' X4#*#' 81,"
12'0&(&/-./'#<#,+-*#'&.0'%4#'1%4#,'4&0'.1'0#%,-(#.%&$'*5(3%1(*
%1%&$*'-.+$)0#0'%4#'%4,##D8##"',&(3D)3'*#**-1.'=8##"*'MT]>'21,'%4#
`X'/,1)3:'X4-*'8&*'&++1(3$-*4#0'%4,1)/4'*$-/4%$5'4-/4#,7'9)%'.1%
12'
0&(&/#:' ?#*3-%#' %4#' 0-22#,#.%' -.-%-&$' +1.0-%-1.*7' 91%4' /,1)3*
*-/.-2-+&.%$5'4-/4#,'=$qA:AR>7'6&$)#*'21,'8##"$5'81,"'&6#,&/#*'21,
#<3#,-#.+#0'%4#'*&(#'.#%'-.+,#&*#'-.'()*+$#'*-C#'&.0'*%,#./%4:'X4#*#
%4#'HG'/,1)3'2,1('8##" K'%4,1)/4'%1'8##" MM'=O-/: @>:
,#*)$%*'
*)//#*%'
-%' -*' %4#'*-/.-2-+&.%$5'
%1%&$' 81,"'
01.#' 0),-./'
X4#' %81'
/,1)3*'%4&%'
#<3#,-#.+#0'
0-22#,#.%'
$#6#$*' 12%,&-.-./' %4&%
Dano Muscular e Hipertrofia
800
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Training week
*
Pre-trained
*
ag
15 e th
0 re
U sh
l –1 o
ld
400
200
0
ls throughout eccentric exercise training protocols,
ean weekly work totals (N 7, each group, ±s.e.m.; note
bars are hidden by the symbols). Mean weekly work totals
the pre-trained (PT, circles) and naive group (NA,
all weekly work totals (weeks 4–11) were not different
the two groups (P>0.05). The histogram on the right
otal work performed over the eight-week training session
y statistically between the groups (P>0.05).
*
600
0
*
D
am
1000
Total training (kJ)
2000
PT NA
Plasma CK (U l–1)
Naive
3000
minimal influence on the outcome of this study. Also,
because the subjects were randomized, a possible effect
should be similar in both groups.
Performance Tests
The subjects were tested twice on each performance test
on four separate days, both before and after the training
period. The coefficient of variation of the strength tests
were approximately 2%. The highest score from each test
was used for later analysis.
9/24/14&
Maximum concentric strength
Maximum concentric strength was measured as the
concentric 1RM in the elbow flexion. The range of motion
of the elbow joint started from a slightly flexed (160-)
position to an end position of 75- in the elbow joint. The
subjects completed three to four sets of three to five
repetitions as a warm-up. Thereafter, single lifts were
performed, with the load increased gradually until the
maximum was reached. Each lift was separated by a pause
of 3–5 min to ensure full recovery between the attempts.
This same rest protocol was used for all performance tests
in the study. The specific concentric strength was defined
as the maximum concentric strength divided by the mean
anatomical cross-sectional area of the elbow flexors.
Maximum eccentric strength
Treino
Excêntrico x Concêntrico –
The eccentric 1RM was measured as the maximum load
the subject
could lower from 75
to 160- in the elbow joint
Indivíduos
Treinados
cally only. The subjects in ECC were instructed to use 3–4 s
()*+$#'0&(&/#7'&*'&**#**#0'%4,1)/4'0#%#,(-.-./'%4#'$#6#$*'12'3$&*(&
Ph:' X4#' `X' /,1)3' 4&0' &' (#&.' Ph' $#6#$' %4&%'Table
,#(&-.#0'
9#$18
2. Quadriceps
muscle volume and isometric strength
MAZ _ $TM n MRA _ $TM = .1,(&$>o7'-.0-+&%-./'.1'0#(1.*%,&9$#'()*+$#
0&(&/#'%4,1)/41)%'%4#'%,&-.-./'3#,-10:'E5'+1.%,&*%7'%4#'HG'/,1)3Pre-trained group (PT)
Naive group (NA)
,#+1,0#0'(#&.'Ph'6&$)#*'8#$$'&916#'.1,(&$7'3#&"-./'1.'8##" R
Pre-training
Post-training
%!
Pre-training
Post-training
%!
#$#6&%#0' -.
&%' RBArMVA _ $TM:' `$&*(&' Ph' ,#(&-.#0' *-/.-2-+&.%$5'
8##"*'KTZ'=$sA:AR>'84#.'%4#'%81'/,1)3*'8#,#'+1(3&,#0'=O-/: ]>:
3
Quadriceps
volume
(cm ) =8##" K>' 8&*' *%&%-*%-+&$$5'
1651±145
1751±141
6.5*
1906±175
2041±176
7.5*
L.-%-&$' 3#,+#-6#0'
*1,#.#**'
*-/.-2-+&.%$5
#$#6&%#0'-.'%4#'HG'/,1)3'=O-/:
K>:
Quadriceps
strength (N)
104.5±64.5
130.5±28.5
24.8*
108.4±81
136.4±118.6
25.8*
E1%4'()*+$#'*%,#./%4'&.0'*-C#'-.+,#&*#0'#F)&$$5'-.'*)9d#+%*'-.
E F F E CTS OF
Mean
values (N 14, ±s.e.m.) of the PT and NA groups before and after the 12-week resistance training. *Significant difference (P<0.05) was seen within the
91%4'/,1)3*:'L.+,#&*#*'-.'61$)(#'12'%4#'F)&0,-+#3*'()*+$#'8#,#
*-/.-2-+&.%'21,'91%4'%4#'`X'&.0'HG'/,1)37',#*3#+%-6#$5'=$sA:AAM7
groups for pre- and post-cross volume values as well as pre- and post-strength results. No statistical difference (P>0.05), however, was present between the
$sA:AM>:'X4#'`X'/,1)3'4&0'&'V:Ri'-.+,#&*#'-.'()*+$#'61$)(#7
NA and PT groups for either muscle volume or strength.
&.0'%4#'HG'/,1)3'&'Z:Ri'-.+,#&*#'=X&9$# @>7'&.0'%4#'0-22#,#.+#
PT weekly mean
NA weekly mean
4000
%4#'#<%,&+#$$)$&,'(&%,-<7'9&*&$'$&(-.&'&.0'*&,+1$#((&'&*'8#$$'&*
0&(&/#'8-%4-.'%4#'()*+$#'2-9#,'%1'%4#'+1.%,&+%-$#'&.0'+5%1*"#$#%&$
3,1%#-.*'=H#84&('#%'&$:7'MQB]>:'!&,+1$#((&'0-*,)3%-1.'-*'+1.2-,(#0
95'&.'-.+,#&*#'-.'9$110D91,.#'$#6#$*'12'-.%,&()*+)$&,'3,1%#-.*'*)+4
&*'+,#&%-.#'"-.&*#'=Ph>7'84-+4'-.'%),.'4&*'9##.'$-."#0'%1'3,10)+%-1.
12' &.' -.2$&((&%1,5' ,#*31.*#' =P&..1.' #%' &$:7' MQBQI' J1).0' #%' &$:7
MQBZ>:'X4#'0&(&/#'%1'%4#'+1.%,&+%-$#'3,1%#-.*')*)&$$5'$#&0*'%1'&'$1**
FIGURE 1—The test and training apparatus for the elbow flexion
12'*%,#./%4'=(&<-(&$'-*1(#%,-+'21,+#>'=P$&,"*1.'#%'&$:7'MQQ@>:
used in the present study.
L.'%4#'+),,#.%'*%)057'&'0&(&/-./'-.-%-&$'#<#,+-*#'91)%'8&*'+1.2-,(#0
95' #$#6&%#0' Ph' $#6#$*' -.' %4#' HG' /,1)3I' -.' 8##"*' KTZ7' 3$&*(&
+1.+#.%,&%-1.*'8#,#'8#$$'&916#'%4#'0&(&/#'%4,#*41$0'&.0'16#,'2-6#
%-(#*'%4&%'12'%4#'`X'/,1)3:'X4#*#'#$#6&%#0'Ph'$#6#$*'8#,#'.1%'-.%#.0#0
Training Protocol
%1'F)&.%-25'%4#'&(1).%'12'0&(&/#'9)%'-.*%#&0'%1'*#,6#'&*'&'(&,"#,
%1' +1.2-,(' %4&%' )$%,&*%,)+%),&$' 0&(&/#' %1' %4#' ()*+$#' 4&0' 1++),,#0
The subjects exercised both arms during the training
=G,(*%,1./7'MQBKI'P$&,"*1.7'MQQZ>:'G.1%4#,'(&,"#,'12'0&(&/#'8&*
&$*1'19*#,6#0'T'%4-*'9#-./'%4#'*-/.-2-+&.%'-.+,#&*#'-.'3#,+#-6#0'*1,#.#**
sessions, but only the nondominant arm was tested and
-.'%4#'HG'/,1)37'84-+4'8&*'&9*#.%'-.'%4#'`X'/,1)3:
analyzed. The training program is given in Table 2 and
G.'#++#.%,-+'#<#,+-*#',#/-(#'8&*')*#0'-.'%4-*'*%)05'*3#+-2-+&$$5
consisted of 2–3 training sessions per week for 12 wk. The
9#+&)*#'%4#'4-/4#*%'21,+#'3,10)+%-1.'-.'*"#$#%&$'()*+$#'1++),*'0),-./
$#./%4#.-./'
()*+$#' +1.%,&+%-1.*'
&.0' %4)*'
3,16-0#*' %4#' /,#&%#*%
exercise
sessions
alternated
between either maximum
*%-()$)*'21,'()*+$#'/,18%4'=^&!%&51'#%'&$:7'@AAA>:'E#+&)*#'12'%4#*#
(repetition maximum, RM) or medium loads. The max4-/4'21,+#*7'()*+$#'0&(&/#'-*'+1((1.$5'&**1+-&%#0'8-%4'#++#.%,-+
+1.%,&+%-1.*:'G$%41)/4'0&(&/#'+&.'9#'&'+1((1.'(&.-2#*%&%-1.'12
imum load was defined as the greatest load that could be
#++#.%,-+'#<#,+-*#7'-2'%4#'(&/.-%)0#'12'21,+#'-*'-.+,#&*#0'/,&0)&$$5
lifted a given number of repetitions and sets (4- to 8RM).
&.0'3,1/,#**-6#$57'()*+$#*'&0&3%'%1'&.5'3&%%#,.'12')*#7'-.+$)0-./
The21,+#*7'
medium
load -.d),5'
was ,#*31.*#
set to a value of 85–90% of
4-/4' #++#.%,-+'
8-%4' .1'training
0#%#+%&9$#' ()*+$#'
=^&!%&51' #%'
MQQQI' H#84&(7'load.
MQBB>:' During
X4#' /,&0)&$'any
,&(3D)3
the&$:7'maximum
given 2 wk of training,
3,1%1+1$')*#0'-.'%4-*'*%)05'8&*'*)++#**2)$'-.'&+4-#6-./'4-/4'%,&-.-./
each subject completed three sessions with the maximum
21,+#*'84-$#'&61-0-./'0#%#+%&9$#'0&(&/#'-.'%4#'`X'/,1)3:
load%4&%'
and
sessions
the
load. As a warm-up
g#' 19*#,6#0'
%4#'two
-.+,#&*#'
-.' ()*+$#'with
61$)(#'
21,'medium
%4#' %81
/,1)3*' 8&*'before
#F)-6&$#.%'
,#/&,0$#**' 12'
O,1(' &.
training,
all&' 0&(&/-./'
subjects91)%:'
completed
two to three sets of
#./-.##,-./' 3#,*3#+%-6#7' 0&(&/#' &*' &' .#+#**&,5' 3,#+),*1,' 21,
6–12 repetitions of the designated action type while
,#*%,)+%),-./'81)$0'*##('%1'9#'&'311,'[0#*-/.'2#&%),#\7',#F)-,-./
gradually
the CON
group, the subjects
)..#+#**&,5'
6)$.#,&9-$-%5' increasing
=-:#:' *&,+1$#((&'load.
0&(&/#7'In
*1,#.#**'
&.0
8#&".#**>'-.',#*31.*#'%1'&',#F)-,#(#.%'21,'&00-%-1.&$'*%,#./%4:'L%
lifted the load from a starting angle of 160- to an end
*##(*'%4&%'&'.##0'21,'&00#0'*%,#./%4'%1'9#'+1)3$#0'%1'&',#F)-,#(#.%
position of approximately 70- in the elbow joint. Similarly,
12'0&(&/#D-.0)+#0'0-(-.-*4#0'*%,#./%4'81)$0'+#,%&-.$5'9#'&61-0#0
95'.&%),&$'*#$#+%-1.'-2'31**-9$#:'L.0##07'0),-./'+4,1.-+',#*-*%&.+#
the ECC group lowered the load from approximately 70 to
%,&-.-./7' 84#%4#,' &.' &%4$#%#' #<3#,-#.+#*' ()*+$#' *1,#.#**' &.0
160-. An assistant returned the load to the starting position,
0&(&/#' &%' %4#' 1.*#%' 12' %,&-.-./' 81)$0' *##(' %1' 4&6#' .1' -(3&+%
thus letting the subjects train concentrically or eccentri84&%*1#6#,'84#.'%,&-.-./'+1.%-.)#*').-.%#,,)3%#0'16#,'(1.%4*'1,
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Training week
Fig. 3. Plasma creatine kinase (CK) levels were measured in each
participant weekly. CK levels increased significantly in the NA group for the
weeks 5T8 (* statistical difference between groups; P<0.05). By contrast,
the PT group was never above the control CK level (150 U l–1), representing
the muscle damage threshold.
for each lowering of the load, and the subjects in CON were
TABLE 2. The training program for the concentric exercise and eccentric
instructed to use maximum effort in every lift. To ensure
exercise groups.
progression in training, the relative training load was
Training Session Each Week
gradually increased every fourth week as the target number
CONCE NTRIC AND E CCE NTRIC TRAINING
2175
Week
1
2
3
Reps per week
of repetitions in each set was decreased from eight to six
1
3 ! 8RM
3 ! 8 medium
3 ! 8RM
72
repetitions
in week 4by
andt hthen
week
bject s in CG
r epor
a lt er in g4 !t h8RM
eir level of ph ysica l 56
a n d pr a ct ice,
wer e followed
r ee to
m afour
xim arepetitions
l isokin et after
ic su
2
3 !t ed
8 medium
addition,
the individual
absolute
ivit y.
m u scle a ct8.ionIn
s for
ea ch isokin
et ic t est m
ode. Thtraining
e m u scleloada ctwas
3
4 ! 8RM
3 ! 8 medium
4 ! 8RM
88
4an alysis.
3 !In8tmedium
4!
8RM
S tatistical
r a cla ss cor
r ela
t ion coefficien t s wer e 56
a ct ion s werprogressively
e sepa r a t ed by
a r est inas
t erthe
va lsubjects
of 25 s. Du
r in g t stronger.
he
increased
became
If
! e-wa
6RM y ANOVA
3 ! 6t omedium
6RM bilit y 66
ca lcu la t ed by 5u sin g a 4on
a ssess t h4e!r elia
25-s r est per
t h e Kin -Com
dynwere
a m om
et er leverduring
a r m mthe
oved
alliod,
repetitions
and sets
completed
maximum
6
3
!
6
medium
4
!
6RM
t or qu e, CSA, a n d iE MG a ct ivit y m ea su r em en t s. Th e st a t is- 42
a t 30°/s t otraining
slowly bout,
r et u r nthet hload
e legwas
t o tincreased
h e in it ia l(0.25–1
t est posit
kg)ion
at theofnext
7
4 ! 6RM
4 ! 6 medium
4 ! 6RM
72
en ces in pr
et est -t o-post t est ch a n ges 48
wit h ou t r equ ir in g a n y m u scu la r a ct ivit y fr om t h e lim b. t ica l sign ifica8n ce of differ
4 ! 6 medium
4 ! 6RM
maximum
session.
If
the
subject
failed
to
complete
on g gr ou ps9 wa s det
m in ed by 4a!t 4h medium
r ee- (gr ou5p!34RM
t im e 3 56
In t r a cla ss r elia bilit y coefficien t s, det er m in ed by u sin g a a mthe
5 !er4RM
session for
as described,
nextm ode) or10t wo- (n4o!t 4est
m ode for
a dr iceps CSA) fa ct or 36
on e-wa y ANOVA
a sin gle t rthe
ia l, load
wer e was
0.84unaltered
for a ver aat
ge thet est
medium
5 ! qu
4RM
5 !m
4RM
4 !t s4 medium
5!
ea su r em en
on t h e t im
e 4RM
a n d t est 56
t or qu e du rmaximum
in g m a ximsessions
a l Con muntil
u scleit awas
ct ionsuccessfully
s a n d 0.83 du
r in g ANOVA
completed.
The wit h 11r epea t ed
mediumh oc t5est
! 4RM
ode fa ct or s 12
followed4 !by4 post
s for sim ple effect s a n d 36
m a xim a l Enumber
cc m u scle
ct ionin
s. each maximum session rose from mthree
ofasets
a n dtraining
sim ple
t r session
a st s aiss given
a pprasopr
t e (23).
DifferWh ile t h e su bject wa s per for m in g t h e m a xim a l-effor t iso- in t er a ct ion The
withincon
each
theia
number
of sets
times the number of
during the first week to five during the last weeks. There
eacht set.
of teach
training
session
a da pt aint ion
o t rThe
a indesignated
in g werintensity
e in dica
ed by
sign
ifi- is termed
kin et ic m u scle a ct ion s, E MG da t a wer e obt a in ed fr om t h e en ces in t h erepetitions
tou6-min
Three
subjects
RMt im
(maximum
medium
thaninmaximum).
ca n tingr ou p 3
e or grload)
ou por3
t im e(10–15%
3 t est lower
m ode
t er a ct ion s.
con t r a ct in gwas
r ighat 3va st
s la t er pause
a lis a nbetween
d va st u s each
m ediaset.
lis m
u scles.
Treino Excêntrico x Concêntrico – Indivíduos
Treinados
All show the training sessions
circles, dashed line). The horizontal arrows
41.2 T (rep).
11.4 B.0.3The
T 0.3
48.5 T 12.1
7.8 T 9.7
2.3 T 2.9
that employed the described number of Pre
repetitions
Post
37.5before
T 9 and2.0
T 3.9
54.9 T 12.4
4.5 T 5.9
1.1 T 2.4
maximum concentric strength and eccentric
strength
after
T 12.1
1.7 are
T4
6.4 T 14.4 j3.3 T 8.4 j1.2 T 3.2
the training in CON (filled bars) and ECCDiff
(openj3.7
bars).
The data
given as mean T SD. *Significantly different
from pre values, P G
Values are means T SD in percent. CON, concentric exercise; ECC, eccentric
0.001; †significantly greater increase than for CON, P G 0.001.
exercise. * Significantly different from pre values (P = 0.03); † significantly
different from CON (P = 0.005).
Vikne et al., 2006
FIGURE 6—Serial anatomical cross-sectional areas (ACSA) of the
elbow flexors in the concentric exercise (CON; panel A) and eccentric
exercise (ECC; panel B) groups before (filled circles, solid lines) and
after (open circles, dashed lines) the training period. Serial ACSA are
given at intervals of one-eighth the length of humerus from the distal
(left) to the proximal (right) end. * Significantly different from pre
values, P G 0.005. The data are mean T SD.
Downloaded from http://jap.physiology.org/ at CAPES - Usage on October 4, 2012
Th e r a n ge of m ot ion du r in g wh ich t h ese da t a wer e collect ed Sim ple a n d m u lt iple cor r ela t ion a n d r egr ession a n a lysis wer e
of the
American
Sports
u sed t o det er m in e t h e r ela t ive con t r ibu t ion s http://www.acsm-msse.org
of ch a n ges in
wa s t h e sa1772
m e a s tOfficial
h a t forJournal
a ver a et
ge
t or qu
e. Th e College
E MG aof
ct ivit
y Medicine
Flann
al.,
2011
Vikne et al., 2006
da t a fr om t h e t wo m u scles wer e su m m ed a n d u sed t o a ssess qu a dr iceps CSA a n d n eu r a l a ct iva t ion t o ch a n ges in st r en gt h .
t h e degr ee of elect r ica l excit a t ion (n eu r a l a ct iva t ion ) of t h e An a lph a level of P # 0.05 wa s u sed for a ll t est s of sign ifiu n der lyin g m u scu la t u r e. E MG a ct ivit y wa s r ecor ded wit h a ca n ce.
by wit
thehAmerican
of pliSports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
t wo-ch a n n el Copyright
Cou lbou r n@r2006
ecor der
a h igh -gaCollege
in bioa m
fier, ba n d-pa ss filt er wit h cu t offs of 8 a n d 1,000 H z, a n d a ga in RES U LTS
of 10,000. Two silver-silver ch lor ide su r fa ce elect r odes wer e
Th e pa t t er n of r esu lt s for pea k a n d a ver a ge t or qu e,
pla ced 30 m m a pa r t over ea ch m u scle a ppr oxim a t ely over t h e
m ea su r ed du r in g m a xim a l Con a n d E cc m u scle a ct ion s,
m ot or poin t . Th e t wo gr ou n d elect r odes wer e pla ced 30 m m
wa
s t h e sa m e. Th er efor e, on ly t h e da t a for a ver a ge
a pa r t over t h e r igh t a n t er ior su per ior ilia c spin e of t h e pelvis.
Befor e t h e elect r odes wer e pla ced, t h e skin wa s t h or ou gh ly t or qu e a r e r epor t ed. Ch a n ges in a ver a ge t or qu e of t h e
clea n ed wit h isopr opyl a lcoh ol a n d sligh t ly scr a t ch ed wit h a r igh t qu a dr iceps m u scle for t h e t h r ee gr ou ps m ea su r ed
st er ile n eedle t o r edu ce in t er elect r ode im peda n ce below 5,000 du r in g m a xim a l Con a n d E cc isokin et ic m u scle a ct ion s
V. Acet a t e pa per wa s u sed t o t r a ce t h e elect r ode pla cem en t t o a r e pr esen t ed in Ta ble 2. Wh en t est ed in t h e E cc m ode,
en su r e t h e sa m e elect r ode pla cem en t wa s m a de in su bse- t h e m ea n a n d per cen t ch a n ges for E TG, CTG, a n d CG
qu en t t est s. Th
e E MG da t a wer e r ect ified a n d in t egr a t ed over wer e 34.0 (36.2%), 12.5 (12.8%), a n d 21.8 (21.7%)
within nor between the two groups. In addition, when the
t h e sa m e t im etwo
per
iodwere
a s pooled
t h e atogether,
ver a ge
for ceno m
ea su r em en t s. Th e N · m , r espect ively. Ma xim u m a ver a ge t or qu e in E TG
groups
we found
statistically
iE MG da t a forsignificant
t h r eechanges
t r ia lsin the
forfiber-type
ea ch proportions.
t est m ode wer e a ver a ged. a n d CTG in cr ea sed sign ifica n t ly m or e t h a n in CG. Th e
In t r a cla ss r elia bilit y coefficien t s for t h e m a xim a l iE MG a ct iv- in cr ea se in a ver a ge t or qu e in E TG wa s sign ifica n t ly
it y du r in g Con
a n dcross-sectional
E cc m u scle
Muscle
areaa ct ion s wer e 0.90 a n d 0.88,
gr ea t er t h a n t h e in cr ea se in CTG.
r espect ively. As seen in Figure 6, the anatomical cross-sectional areas
Wh en t est ed in t h e Con m ode, t h e m ea n a n d per cen t
distal regions
(one- and
Lh)r ed wit h MRI
Th e CSA of were
t h egreater
qu aindrtheiceps
m u scle
watwo-eighths
s m ea su
than in the proximal regions of the elbow-flexor group
by u sin g a Gen
er a l E lect r ic Sigm a Adva n t a ge u n it wit h ch a n ges in a ver a ge t or qu e for E TG, CTG, a n d CG wer e
(three- and four-eighths Lh). The mean anatomical elbowsoft wa r e ver sion
T2 pr
ot(mean
on den
sittoy four-eighths
im a ges fr om 5-m m - 5.4 (6.8%), 14.4 (18.4%), a n d 3.8 (4.7%) N · m , r especflexor 4.6.8.
cross-sectional
area
of one2
Lh)nof
4.9 cm
not change
t h ick a xia l sca
s 26.8
a t T20,
30,of the
40,CON
50,group
60,did 70,
a n d 80% of t h e t ively. Th e ch a n ge in a ver a ge t or qu e wa s sign ifica n t ly
during the training period (+0.7 T 1.1 cm2, +3%; P = 0.1).
fem u r len gt h For
wer
obtgroup,
a inthe
edmean
by area
u sin
g aT 3.4
m ucmlt2 islice
spin -ech o gr ea t er in CTG t h a n in CG. Th er e wa s n o sign ifica n t
theeECC
of 25.4
rose
2
by
2.8
T
1.4
cm
(11%;
P
G
0.001)
during
the
training
pu lse sequ en ce (r epet it ion t im e 5 2,000 m s; ech o t im e 5 10 differ en ce in t h e ch a n ge in a ver a ge t or qu e bet ween
period. The effect thus differed between the two groups
m s), 24-cm field-of-view,
a n d 256
3 192
pixel
E TG a n d CG. Th e in cr ea se in a ver a ge t or qu e in CTG
(P = 0.004; Fig. 6). Increases
in absolute
area were
greaterm a t r ix. Tot a l
flexor
grouppu
had
its largest
sca n t im e wa swhere
6.8 the
m in
. Com
t er-a
ssistportions
ed pla(onen im et r y a n a ly- wa s sign ifica n t ly gr ea t er t h a n t h a t for E TG.
), but the relative hypertrophy was
sis wa s u sedand
t otwo-eighths
det er mLhin
e CSA m ea su r em en t s fr om t h e
E cc isokin et ic t r a in in g in cr ea sed st r en gt h m or e t h a n
comparable between the four individual regions (one- to
im a ges wit h afour-eighths
pixel cou
t in g(10–12%).
r ou t inThe
e. corresponding
In t r a cla ss r elia bilit y Con isokin et ic t r a in in g wh en m ea su r em en t s wer e m a de
Lh) inn ECC
increasesa tof t2–4%
in CONen
were
likewise r a n ged fr om
coefficien t s fornonsignificant
m u scle CSA
h e differ
t levels
by u sin g t h e sa m e m u scle a ct ion a s t h a t u sed du r in g
0.97 t o 0.99.
t r a in in g. Th e ch a n ge in a ver a ge t or qu e m ea su r ed du r Hreduced
eavy-resistan
train
in g. E a ch exper im en t a l su bject
1RM, the loads were
to mean values of 78ce
T 4, 60
T 3,
FIGURE 5—Relative load–velocity
therespectively.
concentric After the normalization of
43 Trelationship
3, and 26tTrin
2%,
a(ECC;
inwased
exercise (CON; panel A) and eccentric exercise
panel hB)er r igh t leg on t h e Kin -Com dyn a m om et er u sin g
the test
therecircles,
little
difference in the velocity of
groups before (filled circles, solid lines)
andloads,
after (open
dashed
eitare
hnormalized
er Con
E cc(Fig.
isokin
et ic m u scle a ct ion s, depen din g on t h e Ta ble 2. Average torqu e at pretest an d posttest
shortening
that
before
the training
5).
lines) the study. The loads V90, V70,
V50, andfrom
V30
to or period
both pre- and postconcentric strength. The test loads were reduced at
r athe
inpost
in g1RM,gr ou p t o wh ich sh e wa s a ssign ed. Tr a in in g wa s 3 for CON an d E CC test m od es
posttesting to 78 T 4, 60 T 3, 43 T 3, and 26 Tt2%
proportions
respectively. The data are mean T Fiber-type
SD.
da ys/wk for 10 wk for a t ot a l of 30 t r a in in g session s. Du r in g
The proportion of the type I fibers differed between the
Gr ou p
P r et est
P ost t est
Mea n Ch a n ge Mea n % Ch a n ge
t r a in in g, su bject s per for m ed t h r ee set s of 10 r epet it ion s wit h
two groups before the training period (P = 0.005; Table 3).
during the training period, Before
although
there
was
a trend
the study,
subjects
hadween
relatively rfew
IIX (2%)
n othe
r est
bet
epet
it ion s. A 3-m in r est wa s given bet ween
E CC Test M od e
toward a reduced proportion and
in the
ECC
group
(P five
= 0.08).
IIA/X
fibers
(8%);
subjects had no IIX fibers, and
set
s. groups
Su bject
werfibers.
e stThea bilized for t r a in in g wit h t h e sa m e
subjects the
hadtwo
less
than
2%
Also, there was no differencesixbetween
in typesIIA/X
CTG
97.7 6 23.5 110.2 6 30.2
12.5*
12.8
proportions
ofpr
type
I fibers
did
the proportions of the type I fibers
after the
training
period.
ocedu
r enotachange
s forin either
t estgroup
in g. Beca u se speed, n ot for ce, is con E TG
93.9 6 18.7 127.9 6 22.0
34.0*†
36.2
There were likewise few alterations in the subgroups of the
t r olled by t h e Kin -Com dyn a m om et er du r in g isokin et ic m u scle
CG
104.6 6 24.3 102.8 6 26.2
21.8
21.7
type II fibers. Only the 2.8% reduction of IIX fibers in
ct ion
for ce of m u scle a ct ion s va r ied wit h in dividu a l effor t .
CON was statistically significant, whereasathere
was s,
a trend
CON Test M od e
for reduction in the proportion of the IIAX
Dufibers.
r in gThere
t h e fir st week of t r a in in g, a for ce m a r ker on t h e
were no other significant differences or changes neither
Kin -Com scr een wa s set a t t h e pr et est pea k for ce m ea su r ed
CTG
78.4 6 18.5
92.8 6 23.4
14.4*‡
18.4
E TG
79.5 6 11.7
84.9 6 13.8
5.4
6.8
du r in g Con or E cc m u scle a ct ion s. Th e su bject wa s a sked t o
TABLE 3. Fiber-type proportions (%) in the CON and ECC groups before and after the
CG
81.7 6 16.2
85.5 6 18.8
3.8
4.7
training period.
r ea ch or exceed t h e for ce m a r ker wit h ea ch r epet it ion . Th e
Type I
Type IIC
Type IIA
Type IIAX
Type IIX
for
ce
m
a
r
ker
pla
cem
en
t
wa
s
a
dju
st
ed
ea
ch
week
ba
sed
on
Va lu es a r e m ea n s 6 SD in N · m . Ba sed on gr ou p 3 t im e pa r t ia l
CON (N = 8)
Pre
34.5 T 10.7 0.3 T 0.4
50.5 T 14.9 11.3isokin
T 11.4
3.3 et
T 3.2ic st r en gt h t est s.
in t er a ct ion fr om a n a lysis of va r ia n ce (ANOVA): * sign ifica n t ly differPost
35 T 9.3
1.1 T 1.7
58.9 T 12.7
4.5 T 5.9
0.5 T 0.6*
Diff
0.5 T 12.2
0.8 T 1.9
8.4 T 17.6 j6.8 T 9.4Su
j2.8
T3
bject
s in CG wer e in st r u ct ed t o m a in t a in t h eir pr eviou s en t (P , 0.05) com pa r ed wit h CG; † sign ifica n t ly gr ea t er (P , 0.05)
ECC (N = 6)
Preload 50.1
T 3.5†
0.2 T 0.3
45.7 T 7.5
3.1level
T 4.1
0.9of
T 1.9 a ct ivit y a n d n ot begin a lower-ext r em it y st r en gt h
FIGURE 3— A. Progression of the training
during
the training
com pa r ed wit h CTG a n d CG; ‡ sign ifica n t ly gr ea t er (P , 0.05) com Post exercise
40.9 T 8.1
3.1 T 5.8
49.6 T 10.8
4.5 T 6.4
1.9 T 3.6
period from sessions 1 to 29 in the concentric
group (CON;
Diff j9.2
T 10.4
T 5.9
3.9 T 9.7
1.4tTr3.6
1 Tg
1.8 pr ogr a m
a in in
u n t il t h e st u dy wa s over. Non e of t h e pa r ed wit h E TG a n d CG.
filled circles, solid line) and the eccentric exercise
group
(ECC;2.9
open
Treino Excêntrico x Concêntrico – Indivíduos
Destreinados
Higbie et al., 1996
post- vs pretraining tests; Fig. 3B).
The improvements
were
1776
Official Journal
of the American College of Sports Medicine
http://www.acsm-msse.org
4.7 T 2.2 kg (18%) and 3.9 T 1.3 kg (14%) after training for
CON and ECC, respectively. The eccentric 1RM improved
more for ECC (8.6 T 3.3 kg, 26%) than for CON (3.1 T
1.3 kg, 9%; P G 0.001 for ECC vs CON).
Consequently,
thethe American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright
@ 2006 by
ratio between the eccentric 1RM and the concentric 1RM
developed differently (P G 0.001). For CON, the ratio
decreased from 1.30 T 0.10 to 1.20 T 0.12 during the
training period (P = 0.007), whereas for ECC, the ratio
increased from 1.21 T 0.08 to 1.33 T 0.12 (P = 0.008).
Maximum angular velocity
Both groups increased the maximum angular velocities
at all loads during the training period (P G 0.05; Fig. 4),
and there was no difference between the two groups. The
increase in the absolute angular velocity was similar in all
tests (V2–V90) and ranged from 18 (V2) to 53-Isj1 (V90).
Because the absolute angular velocity decreased as the load
increased, the relative effect of training was greatest at the
highest loads. When the test loads of 90, 70, 50, and 30% of
the preconcentric 1RM were normalized to the postconcentric
RESISTANCE TRAINING IN TRAINED MEN
FIGURE 4—Maximum angular velocity at loads 90% (V90), 70%
(V70), 50% (V50), and 30% (V30) of the maximum concentric
strength at pretest and the common 2-kg load (V2). All velocities are
taken at 115- in the elbow joint before (filled circles, solid lines) and
after (open circles, dashed lines) the study in the concentric exercise
group (CON; panel A) and the eccentric exercise group (ECC; panel
B). * Significantly different from pre values, P G 0.05. The data are
mean T SD.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercised
1775
Copyright @ 2006 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
12&
9/24/14&
Treino Excêntrico x Concêntrico – Indivíduos
Destreinados
2176
Velocidade da Fase Excêntrica e
Hipertrofia
E F F E CTS OF CONCE NTRIC AND E CCE NTRIC TRAINING
Higbie et al., 1996
in g E cc m u scle a ct ion s a ft er E cc t r a in in g (36.2%) wa s
sign ifica n t ly gr ea t er t h a n t h e cor r espon din g ch a n ge in
a ver a ge t or qu e m ea su r ed du r in g Con m u scle a ct ion s
a ft er Con t r a in in g (18.4%).
Ch a n ges in t h e CSA of t h e qu a dr iceps m u scle det erm in ed fr om MRI sca n s a ft er t r a in in g a r e pr esen t ed in
F ig. 1. F or t h e seven levels (20 – 80% fem u r len gt h ), t h e
m ea n a n d per cen t in cr ea ses in CSA of t h e qu a dr iceps
for E TG a n d CTG r a n ged fr om 1.9 t o 3.3 cm 2 (6.0 – 7.8%)
a n d fr om 1.7 t o 2.8 cm 2 (3.5 – 8.6%), r espect ively. F or t h e
su m of t h e seven levels, t h e CSA of t h e qu a dr iceps
in cr ea sed 19.9 cm 2 (6.6%) in E TG com pa r ed wit h 15.0
cm 2 (5.0%) for CTG (Ta ble 3). No in cr ea se in CSA of t h e
qu a dr iceps m u scle wa s fou n d in CG. Th e in cr ea ses in
CSA of t h e qu a dr iceps for t h e t wo t r a in in g gr ou ps wer e
sign ifica n t ly gr ea t er t h a n t h e in cr ea se for CG. Th e
in cr ea ses for E TG wer e sign ifica n t ly gr ea t er t h a n for
CTG a t t h e 40, 50, 60, a n d 70% levels a n d for t h e su m of
t h e seven levels. Th e sign ifica n ce of t h e sm a ll E TG-t oCTG differ en ces m a y h a ve been du e in pa r t t o t h e
gr ea t er va r ia bilit y of t h e ch a n ges in CTG (see F ig. 2).
Ch a n ges in iE MG of t h e r igh t qu a dr iceps m u scle for
t h e t h r ee gr ou ps m ea su r ed du r in g m a xim a l volu n t a r y
Gr ou p
P r et est
P ost t est
Mea n Ch a n ge
Mea n % Ch a n ge
CTG
E TG
CG
295.4 6 52.0
300.8 6 41.3
323.7 6 52.8
310.3 6 56.2
320.7 6 43.7
320.9 6 53.0
15.0*
19.9*†
22.8
5.0
6.6
20.9
Va lu es a r e m ea n s 6 SD in cm 2 of su m of cr oss-sect ion a l a r ea s fr om
7 levels (20 – 80% fem u r len gt h ). Ba sed on gr ou p 3 t im e pa r t ia l
in t er a ct ion fr om ANOVA: * sign ifica n t ly gr ea t er (P , 0.05) com pa r ed
wit h CG; † sign ifica n t ly gr ea t er (P , 0.05) com pa r ed wit h CTG
a n d CG.
Downloaded from http://jap.physiology.org/ at CAPES - Usage on October 4, 2012
F ig. 1. Va lu es a r e m ea n s 6 SE . Ch a n ge in cr oss-sect ion a l a r ea (CSA; cm 2 ) of qu a dr iceps m u scle m ea su r ed fr om
m a gn et ic r eson a n ce im a gin g sca n s a t 7 levels a t pr et est a n d post t est in con cen t r ic (Con ; A ), eccen t r ic (E cc; B ), a n d
con t r ol (C ) gr ou ps. * Sign ifica n t ly gr ea t er com pa r ed wit h con t r ol gr ou p a t P # 0.05. ** Sign ifica n t ly differ en t
com pa r ed wit h Con gr ou p a t P # 0.05.
Ta ble 3. Cross-section al area of qu ad riceps m u scle
(su m of 7 levels) at pretest an d posttest
•  O exercício excêntrico
veloz produziu
maiores ganhos de
torque do que o
exercício excêntrico
lento
CTRL
ECC
CON
Farthing & Chilibeck, 2003
F ig. 2. Sca t t er plot s of ch a n ge in a ver a ge t or qu e m ea su r ed du r in g
m a xim a l Con a n d E cc kn ee ext en sion s t o ch a n ges in qu a dr iceps CSA
(su m of 7 slices) a n d in t egr a t ed volt a ge fr om E MG (iE MG) in E cc
t r a in in g gr ou p (E TG) a n d Con t r a in in g gr ou p (CTG). Lin ea r r egr ession lin es a r e sh own . F or E TG t est ed du r in g E cc m u scle a ct ion s (A
a n d B ; s), ch a n ge in (D) t or qu e 5 1.63 · DCSA 1 1.47; r 5 0.51;
st a n da r d er r or of est im a t e (SE E ) 5 18.1 Nm a n d D · t or qu e 5 1.69 3
10 4 · DiE MG 1 26.68; r 5 0.48; SE E 5 18.6 N · m . F or E TG t est ed
du r in g Con m u scle a ct ion s (A a n d B ; r), Dt or qu e 5 0.29 · DCSA 2
0.34; r 5 0.20; SE E 5 9.1 N · m a n d Dt or qu e 5 4.39 3 10 4 · DiE MG 1
4.68; r 5 0.43; SE E 5 8.4 N · m . F or CTG t est ed du r in g Con m u scle
a ct ion s (C a n d D; s), Dt or qu e 5 1.11 · DCSA 2 3.95; r 5 0.70; SE E 5
9.3 N · m a n d Dt or qu e 5 1.29 3 10 5 · DiE MG 1 8.6; r 5 0.68;
SE E 5 9.5 N · m . F or CTG t est ed du r in g E cc m u scle a ct ion s (C a n d D;
r), Dt or qu e 5 1.09 · DCSA 2 3.95; r 5 0.44; SE E 5 17.8 N · m a n d
Dt or qu e 5 6.6 3 10 4 · DiE MG 1 9.65; r 5 0.19; SE E 5 19.5 N · m .
Velocidade da Fase
Excêntrica e Hipertrofia
Velocidade da Fase Excêntrica e
Hipertrofia
•  O exercício excêntrico
veloz produziu uma
maior hipertrofia nas
porções proximal,
média e distal do
bíceps braquial
•  O treino excêntrico
veloz produziu
sempre maiores
torques do que o
treino excêntrico lento
Farthing & Chilibeck, 2003
Shepstone et al., 2005
13&
9/24/14&
Velocidade da Fase Excêntrica e
Hipertrofia
Velocidade da Fase
Excêntrica e Hipertrofia
•  O treino excêntrico
produziu uma maior
quantidade de lesão nas
fibras de contração
rápida
•  Durante contrações
excêntricas há uma
reversão do princípio do
tamanho. Fato que
produz maior hipertrofia
nas fibras de contração
rápida
•  O treino excêntrico
rápido produziu uma
maior hipertrofia nas
fibras de contração
rápida
•  Qual é a explicação
para tal fato?
Shepstone et al., 2005
Tipos&de&Ação&Hormonal&
Shepstone et al., 2005
Fatores&Endócrinos&x&Locais&
•  O&grupo&do&Dr.&Kraemer&e&Dr.&Hakkinnen&vem&
nos&úl]mos&10&anos&tentando&relacionar&os&
ganhos&de&força&à&magnitude&da&resposta&
endócrina&após&sessões&de&exercício&de&força&e&
períodos&de&treinamento&
•  &&
Gyton&&&Hall,&2008&
West&et&al.,&2010&
14&
9/24/14&
Fatores&Endócrinos&x&Locais&
•  Por&outro&lado,&outros&grupos&vem&tentando&
demonstrar&que&não&há&relação&entre&as&
respostas&endócrinas&e&os&ganhos&de&força&e&
hipertrofia&muscular&decorrentes&do&
treinamento&de&força&
Lactato&x&Séries&
•  A&quan]dade&de&lactato&
produzida&em&uma&
sessão&não&parece&ser&
afetada&pelo&número&de&
séries&
•  &&
Smilios&et&al.,&2003&
West&et&al.,&2010&
Lactato&x&Repe]ções&
•  Quanto&maior&o&número&
de&repe]ções&na&série&
maior&é&a&concentração&
de&lactato&no&sangue&
Smilios&et&al.,&2003&
Testosterona&x&Séries&
•  O&número&de&séries&não&
parece&afetar&a&
liberação&de&
testosterona&de&forma&
aguda&
Smilios&et&al.,&2003&
15&
9/24/14&
Testosterona&x&Repe]ções&
GH&x&Séries&
•  O&número&de&repe]ções&
nas&séries&também&
parece&não&afetar&a&
liberação&de&
testosterona&de&
maneira&aguda&
•  Um&maior&número&de&séries&
parece&aumentar&a&liberação&
de&GH&após&o&treino.&&
Smilios&et&al.,&2003&
Smilios&et&al.,&2003&
GH&x&Repe]ções&
Cor]sol&x&Séries&
•  10&repe]ções&parecem&
maximizar&a&liberação&
de&GH&agudamente&
•  Quando&as&séries&têm&
10&ou&mais&repe]ções,&
um&maior&número&de&
séries&incrementa&a&
liberação&de&cor]sol&
Smilios&et&al.,&2003&
Smilios&et&al.,&2003&
16&
9/24/14&
Cor]sol&x&Repe]ções&
•  Quanto&maior&o&número&
de&repe]ções&maior&a&
liberação&de&cor]sol&
•  L&+&A&=&2&x&6V10&RM&
•  Leg&press,&extensão&e&flexão&dos&joelhos,&flexão&dos&
cotovelos&
•  A&=&2&x&6V10&RM&
•  Flexão&dos&cotovelos&
2x/sem.&
Smilios&et&al.,&2003&
11&semanas&
Ronnestad&et&al.,&2010&
Ronnestad&et&al.,&2010&
17&
9/24/14&
Dose&Testosterona&K&Hipertrofia&
•  Testosterona&com&ação&endócrina&parece&
produzir&hipertrofia&de&uma&maneira&doseK
dependente&
•  Ela&produz&hipertrofia&tanto&de&fibras&
musculares&]po&I&quanto&]po&II&
SinhaKHikim&et&al.&(2003)&&
Fatores&Endócrinos&x&Locais&
•  Treinamento&para&os&
flexores&de&cotovelo&
•  Treinamento&para&os&
flexores&de&cotovelo&
mais&séries&de&leg&press&
Dose&Testosterona&K&Hipertrofia&
•  A&hipertrofia&muscular&só&
foi&produzida&pela&
testosterona&com&função&
endócrina&quando&a&dose&
era&suprafisiológica&
•  A&hipertrofia&foi&causada&
por&a]vação&de&células&
satélites&e&consequente&
aumento&de&mionúcleos&
nas&fibras&(domínio&
mionuclear)&
SinhaKHikim&et&al.&(2003)&&
Fatores&Endócrinos&x&Locais&
•  A&resposta&de&lactato&e&testosterona&total&foi&mais&
elevada&antes&e&após&o&treinamento&na&condição&de&
alta&produção&hormonal&&
–  Produzir&uma&maior&
elevação&aguda&dos&
hormônios&
anabolizantes&
West&et&al.,&2010&
West&et&al.,&2010&
18&
9/24/14&
Fatores&Endócrinos&x&Locais&
•  A&resposta&de&GH&e&testosterona&livre&foi&mais&
elevada&antes&e&após&o&treinamento&na&condição&de&
alta&produção&hormonal&&
West&et&al.,&2010&
Fatores&Endócrinos&
&x&Locais&
Fatores&Endócrinos&x&Locais&
•  A&resposta&de&IGFK1&foi&mais&elevada&antes&e&após&o&
treinamento&na&condição&de&alta&produção&hormonal&&
West&et&al.,&2010&
Fatores&Endócrinos&x&Locais&
West&et&al.,&2010&
West&et&al.,&2009&
19&
9/24/14&
Fatores&Endócrinos&
&x&Locais&
Modelo de Esfigmomanômetro
para Promover a Oclusão
Vascular
180 mm X 900 mm
LAURENTINO, et al. (2008)
Int J Sports Med; 29: 664–667.
West&et&al.,&2009&
Oclusão Vascular
Oclusão
•  A oclusão do fluxo
sanguíneo parece ser
um fator importante
para os ganhos de
força muscular
•  Ela estimularia a
hipóxia, fadiga local,
produzindo maiores
ganhos em força
Takarada, 2000
20&
9/24/14&
Oclusão
•  A oclusão permitiu uma
maior ativação muscular,
mesmo com cargas mais
baixas
Oclusão
•  Os ganhos em
hipertrofia foram
semelhantes com baixa
intensidade e oclusão ao
treino com alta
intensidade sem oclusão
Takarada, 2000
Oclusão
•  Os ganhos de força,
em várias
velocidades, foram
iguais com oclusão
Takarada, 2000
Oclusão
•  Verificar o efeito do treinamento com
oclusão vascular na hipertrofia e ganho de
força de jovens
Takarada, 2000
Laurentino et al., 2011
21&
9/24/14&
Kaatsu-Walk Training
•  Usa a oclusão vascular
como estímulo de
treinamento
•  Pressão mantida durante
o treino a 120 mmHg
•  3 semanas de treino
•  6 vezes por semana
•  2 vezes por dia
•  5X2minX1min
•  3 km/h
Kaatsu-Walk Training
•  O grupo que andou com oclusão vascular teve
hipertrofia muscular
Abe et al., 2006
Oclusão&Vascular&x&Expressão&Miosta]na&
• 
• 
• 
• 
Abe et al., 2006
Oclusão&Vascular&x&&
Expressão&Miosta]na&
8&semanas&de&treinamento&
Pressão&de&Oclusão&–&80%&da&PA&de&oclusão&
Grupos&20%&e&20%Ocl&K&3&x&15&RM/4&x&15&RM&
Grupo&80%&K&3&x&8RM/4&x&8RM&
Lauren]no&et&al.,&2012&
Lauren]no&et&al.,&2012&
22&
9/24/14&
23&
9/24/14&
210 Training & Testing
Statistical analysis
After normality (i. e. Shapiro Wilk) and variance assurance (i. e.,
Levene), a mixed model was performed for each dependent variable, having group and time as fixed factors, and subjects as a
random factor [37] (SAS® 9.2). Whenever a significant F-value
was obtained, a post-hoc test with a Tukey’s adjustment was
performed for multiple comparison purposes. Whenever p-values of the F-tests indicated a trend towards significant values,
the percentage change from pre- to post-training was calculated
for each participant and a one way-ANOVA was used to compare
the groups (i. e., VO2max and time to exhaustion). A Tukey posthoc test was used for the multiple comparisons when necessary.
The significance level was set at p < 0.05. Results are expressed as
mean ± standard error (SE).
Results
7–8
10–12 RM
3
30–36
120 s
80 %
vVO2max
20
60 s
45 s
85–90 %
vVO2max
20
60 s
60 s
95 %
vVO2max
20
60 s
60 s
95–100 %
vVO2max
15
60 s
90 s
De&Souza&et&al.,&2013&
connected to the gas analyzer for breath-by-breath measurements of gaseous exchange. VO2max was defined when 2 or more
of the following criteria were met: an increase in VO2 of less than
2.1 ml·kg 1·min 1 between 2 consecutive stages, a respiratory
exchange ratio greater than 1.1, a blood lactate concentration
higher that 8.0 mmol·l 1, and a ± 10 bpm of the predicted maximal heart rate (i. e. 220-age) [21]. The data was smoothed averaging the data over 10-s intervals and VO2max was obtained from
the average of the 3 highest values obtained during the test. In
addition, the time taken to exhaustion was recorded as an
endurance performance variable. Verbal encouragement was
provided to ensure that maximal values were reached.
Muscle cross-sectional area
Quadriceps cross-sectional area was obtained through magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI) (Signa LX 9.1, GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI, USA). Subjects lay in the device in a supine position with
straight legs. A bandage was used to restrain leg movements
during image acquisition. All images were captured from both
legs. An initial image was captured to determine the perpendicular distance from the greater trochanter to the inferior border
of the lateral epicondyle of the femur, which was defined as
*!
*!
2
*!
*!
*!
*!
2
52
Muscle analyses
46
Immunoblotting
40
20
10
a
Downloaded by: Dot. Lib Information. Copyrighted material.
5–6
6–8 RM
5
30–40
120 s
Pre- and post-training muscle samples were taken from the
Leg press
(LP) 1 RM,
left (LT) and right
(RT) cross-sectional
area for the dominant
control (C), interval training (IT), strength training (ST), and concurrent
midportion Table
of 2the
vastus
lateralis
ofthigh
the
participants’
training (CT) groups pre- and post-training (mean ± SE).
legs using the percutaneous biopsy Ctechnique withIT suction.
ST
CT
LP-1RM (kg) were dissected
Pre
261.2 ±from
56.1
268.4 ± 47.6
Muscle specimens
free
blood 255.4
and± 56.4
connec- 270.3 ± 45.5
Post
262.8 ± 60.6
263.8 ± 51.5
320.3 ± 57.0
315.7 ± 63.5
tive tissue and
washed
in Pre
deionized8 347.3
water,
in liquid 8 332.4 ± 893.3
LT-CSA
(mm )
± 1 643.1then frozen
8 390.3 ± 817.5
8 340.8 ± 1 000.0
Post
8 556.3 ± 1 579.7
8 658.2 ± 922.3
8 849.5 ± 893.3
8 996.8 ± 919.5
nitrogen andRT-CSA
stored
80
The pre- 8 215.4 ± 898.8
(mm ) at
Pre °C for protein
8 332.7 ± 1 511.6extraction.
8 483.5 ± 920.9
8 261.4 ± 1 002.0
Post
8 508.3 ± 1 467.4
8 756.1 ± 1 001.6
8 668.0 ± 952.4
8 882.7 ± 868.4
training and *-post-training
biopsies
were
taken,
respectively,
4
Post-test values greater than pre-test values (p < 0.001)
!- Post-test
values forof
the ST
and CT groups greater
than48
the C h
and after
IT groups (p the
< 0.001) last training
days before the
start
training
and
session. The a post-training sample bwas obtained from a site Fig. 1 Aerobic fitness for the control (C), interval
58
30
training (IT), strength training (ST), and concur3 cm proximal to the pre-training incision.
a
rent training (CT) groups. Pre- and Post-training
(mean ± SE). a – greater than C and ST groups
(p < 0.05). b – lower than IT, ST and CT groups
(p < 0.05).
0
Post
Pre
–10
AMPK, phospho-Thr172
AMPK
(p-AMPK),
Akt, phospho-Ser473Akt
IT
CT
C
ST
S6K1
and phospho-Thr389-p70
(p-p70S6K1) expres(p-Akt), p70S6K1
c
d
15
800
sion levels were evaluated by immunoblotting
in total vastus
10
700 Briefly, samples were 5subjected to SDS-PAGE
lateralis extracts.
0
in polyacrylamide
gels (6–15 %) depending
upon protein molec600
–5
ular weight. After electrophoresis, proteins
were electrotransb
500
–10
Pre
Post
ferred to nitrocellulose
membranes
(BioRad Biosciences;
Piscataway, NJ, USA). Equal gel loading and transfer e ciency
de Souza EO et al. Molecular Adaptations to Concurrent training. Int J Sports Med 2013; 34: 207–213
were monitored
using 0.5 % Ponceau S staining of blot membrane. Blotted membrane was then blocked (5 % BSA, 10 mM
Tris-HCl (pH = 7.6), 150 mM NaCl, and 0.1 % Tween 20) for 2 h at
room temperature and then incubated overnight at 4 °C with
specific antibodies against AMPK, p-AMPK, Akt, pAkt, p70S6K1
and p-p70S6K1 (Cell Signaling Tech., MA, USA) and GAPDH
(Advanced Immunochemical, CA, USA). Binding of the primary
antibody was detected with the use of peroxidase-conjugated
secondary antibodies (rabbit or mouse, depending on the protein, for 2 h at room temperature) and developed using enhanced
chemiluminescence (Amersham Biosciences, NJ, USA) detected
by autoradiography. Quantification analysis of blots was performed with the use of Image J software (Image J based on NIH
image). Samples were normalized to relative changes in GAPDH.
In addition, AMPK, Akt, and p70S6K1 phosphorylated/total ratios
De&Souza&et&al.,&2013&
ed by: Dot. Lib Information. Copyrighted material.
3–4
8–10 RM
4
32–40
120 s
Aerobic fitness was significantly improved in the interval2max was improved in 5 ± 0.95 %
and 15 ± 1.3 % (pre- to post-test) in groups CT and IT, respectively,
Muscle biopsy
trained groups after training. VO
% Change
VO2max (ml.kg –1.min –1)
bouts
bout time
rest interval
1–2
12 RM
3
36
90 s
Aerobic fitness
Treinamento&Concorrente&
% Change
time to exhaustion (seconds)
weeks
intensity
sets
total volume
rest interval
interval training
intensity
AMPK total protein content remained unchanged across time in
the ST, CT, IT, and C groups (p = 0.90). Significantly greater Akt
protein content was observed at the post-test in the ST group
when compared with the C and IT groups (p 0.03). The CT
group presented a significant pre- to post-training increment in
p70S6K1 protein content (p = 0.04). Additionally, ST and CT groups
showed greater p70S6K1 protein content when compared with
both the C (p 0.03) and IT (p 0.01) groups at post-test. The IT
group showed increased AMPK phosphorylation from the preto the post-training assessment and greater activity when compared with C, CT and ST groups (p = 0.01) at the post-testing. The
ST group presented a significantly increased Akt phosphorylation
Training & Testing 209
VO2max (ml.kg–1.min–1)
Strength Training
The ST and CT groups increased leg-press 1RM similarly from
pre- to post-test (p 0.001) and presented greater maximum
strength values than the C group in the post-test (p 0.001).
There were no training e ects in leg press 1RM for the IT and C
groups (p 0.93) ( Table 2).
Time to exhaustion (seconds)
Table 1 Strength and interval training progressions throughout 8 weeks.
Muscle hypertrophy
Left and right legs quadriceps CSA were significantly increased
in both the ST (6.2 ± 1.4 % and 5.5 ± 1.42 %, p 0.0005) and CT
groups (7.8 ± 1.66 % and 7.5 ± 1.96 %, p < 0.0001) in the post-test.
Quadriceps CSA was greater in the ST and CT groups compared
to the C group in the post-test (p 0.05). No di erences were
observed in both the C and IT groups (p 0.75. and p 0.18,
respectively) ( Table 2).
Molecular responses
Maximal strength
Treinamento&Concorrente&
(p = 0.003 and p = 0.003 when compared to the C group). There
were no significant di erences in maximal aerobic power increments between CT and IT (p 0.05). All of the training groups
presented similar and significant percentage increase in time to
exhaustion (TE) when compared to C (CT = 6.1 ± 0.58 %, p = 0.04;
IT = 8.3 ± 0.88 %, p = 0.04; ST = 3.2 ± 0.66 %, p = 0.04) ( Fig. 1).
24&
9/24/14&
groups covered approximately 5 065 m ( ± 371.5) per training
session. The IT protocol used in the present study was based on
previous findings that demonstrate: a) a significant superiority
of intermittent vs. continuous training regimens in increasing
aerobic fitness [16]; and b) the acute interference of the present
IT protocol in muscle force production capacity [10]. Despite the
expected increase in time to exhaustion in the IT group, the
increase in this variable observed in the ST group is in accordance with previous studies demonstrating that maximal
strength training may positively a ect the TE [35].
Regarding the muscle strength, some studies have reported
reduced gains after CT regimens [19, 34]. For instance, Hickson
[19] and Kraemer et al. [24] presented significant di erences in
strength gains from pre- to post-training for the ST and CT
groups (30 % and 19.5 %, and 35 % and 24 %, respectively). However, it should be emphasized that it might be di cult to compare CT studies [19, 24] due to some confounding factors, such as
the type and the intensity of endurance training. Hickson [19]
and Kraemer et al. [24] employed a constant workload and traditional endurance exercise (i. e. continuous running) as a greater
part of their endurance regimens. In addition, these authors
used a longer duration than the current study (i. e., 10–12 weeks
of training) and a very high training volume (5 and 4 sessions of
each training mode per week, respectively) [19, 24]. Such an
unusual high strength training volume may have hampered
recovery between training sessions, causing the reduction in
strength gains. On the other hand, the low-volume strength
training protocol used in our CT regimen produced similar gains
over time (p = 0.03). Moreover, Akt activity was significantly greater
in the ST group when compared with both the C and IT groups
(p 0.03) at the post-test. The ST group presented a trend toward
higher p70S6K1 phosphorylation (p = 0.06). The ST group presented
significantly greater p70S6K1 phosphorylation when compared with
the C and the IT groups (p 0.02) at the post-test. Finally, there were
no changes in AMPK, Akt, and p70S6K1 phosphorylated/total ratios
from pre- to post-training assessments (p 0.61) ( Fig. 2).
Training Regimens and Gene Expression
Discussion
Forward
Reverse
GTACGAGCCACCCCCGACAGC
TGCTGTCTCCATGTTTGATGTATCT
CCAGGCTGGGAACTGCTGGC
GGATTTCTGGAGGCCTGCTT
GACCAGGAGAAGATGGGCTGAATCCGTT
CAGATACCCGATGGATTTTCTCA
AGCGCCCCCGAGCCTTGAT
TCTCTGCTCCCCACCTCTAAGT
TCTCTGCTCCCCACCTCTAAGT
TCCAGAGGTGTGAGCCAGTCT
GCTCATCACAGTCAAGACCAAAATCCCTT
CCCTGTTTCAGCGGAGGAA
Hipertrofia&–&Treinamento&Concorrente&
for the leg-press 458, knee extension, and knee flexion exercises. All the exercises were performed at constant-speed
eccentric and concentric muscle actions, and through a 908
range of motion at the knee joint. The subjects in the IT
group performed high-intensity IT on a treadmill. The targeted training intensity was 80–100% of the speed needed to
elicit V_ O2max (vV_ O2max). Concurrent training group performed the same ST and IT training protocols described
The purpose of this study was to investigate the chronic e ects
of CT on skeletal muscle hypertrophy as well as phosphorylation
of selected AMPK and Akt/mTOR/p70S6K1 proteins. We hypothesized that in a CT regimen, the activation of the AMPK pathway
produced by the IT component would blunt the strength exercise-induced muscle hypertrophy and impair increases in muscle strength. Our findings do not support the proposed
hypothesis ( Fig. 2). Conversely, the novel finding of the present
study was that, in humans, the muscle hypertrophy stimuli produced by CT seem to override the AMPK hypertrophy-blunting
e ect observed in the IT regimen. This data is further supported
by the similar muscle strength and hypertrophy gains after CT
and ST regimens.
The interval training regimen used in the present study was
e ective in increasing aerobic fitness in both groups that performed the IT ( Fig. 1). The participants from the IT and CT
Treinamento&Concorrente&
Pre
kDa C
62
Post
IT ST CT
C
Pre
IT ST CT
kDa C
AMPK
62
60
AKT
60
70
p70
70
p-AMPK (a.u.)
AMPK total (a.u.)
1.0
0.5
0.0
Pre
p70S6k1 total (a.u.)
the
TM
De&Souza&et&al.,&2014&
Hipertrofia&–&Intensidade&e&Exercício&
Fonseca&et&al.,&2014&
p-Akt (a.u.)
Pre
d,f c,d,f
1.0
0.5
0.0
Pre
C
IT
ST
Post
CT
1.0
0.5
Pre
Pre
d,f
1.0
0.5
Pre
C
IT
ST
Post
CT
C
Post
IT ST CT
p-AKTser473
AKT
p-p70thr389
p70
p-AMPKthr172
AMPK
2
1
0
Pre
Post
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Post
1.5
Pre
IT ST CT
3
c,d,f
0.5
0.0
kDa C
60
p-AMPKthr172 60
p-AKTser473
70
70
p-p70thr389
62
GAPDH
62
Post
1.0
0.0
Post
1.5
p-p70S6k1 (a.u.)
Akt total (a.u.)
0.5
1.5
1.5
d,f
1.0
0.0
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
ST CT
2.0
0.0
Post
1.5
Figure 1. Muscle fibers types cross-sectional area responses before (Pre) and after (Post) the training regimens. *p # 0.05 for within-group comparisons (Pre
vs. Post). C = control; CSA = cross-sectional area; CT = concurrent training; IT = interval training; ST = strength training.
IT
c,d,g,h
2.5
1.5
4
C
GAPDH 36
36
AU10
Post
IT ST CT
AMPK Phospho/
Total (a.u.)
ActIIb
FOXO-3a
FLST-3
GASP-1
MSTN
SMAD-7
Akt Phospho/
Total (a.u.)
Genes
p70S6k1 Phospho/
Total (a.u.)
TABLE 1. Sequence of primers used in real-time polymerase chain reaction.
Downloaded by: Dot. Lib Information. Copyrighted material.
Training & Testing 211
Pre
Post
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Pre
C
Post
IT
ST
CT
Fig. 2 Total, phosphorylated and phosphorylated/total ratio AMPK, Akt, and p70S6K1 protein expression for the control (C), interval training (IT), strength
training (ST), and concurrent training (CT) groups. Pre- and Post-training (mean ± SE). Protein expression was normalized by GAPDH. c – post-training values
greater than pre-training values (p < 0.05). d- post-training values greater than the C group, at the same time point (p < 0.05). f – post-training values for the
ST group greater than for the IT group, at the same time point (p < 0.05). g – post-training values for the IT group greater than for the ST group, at the same
time point (p < 0.05). h – post-training values for the IT group greater than for the CT group, at the same time point (p < 0.05).
De&Souza&et&al.,&2013&
de Souza EO et al. Molecular Adaptations to Concurrent training. Int J Sports Med 2013; 34: 207–213
Hipertrofia&–&Intensidade&e&Exercício&
Fonseca&et&al.,&2014&
25&
9/24/14&
40
Hipertrofia&–&Intensidade&e&Exercício&
(e.g., volume total, séries, repetições e intervalo de descanso). O intervalo entre as
séries (i.e. 2 minutos) foi mantido durante toda a duração do estudo, o número total de
Periodização&e&Hipertrofia&
séries, as repetições e a carga levantada foram controlados semanalmente para evitar
distorções entre os grupos na variável no volume total (i.e., [séries • repetições •quilos (agachamento) + séries • repetições •quilos (cadeira extensora]) TABELA 3.
TABELA 3 - Progressão do volume, da intensidade e dos exercícios utilizados durante
as doze semanas de treinamento.
Grupos
Semanas 1-
Semanas 5-
4
Semanas 9-
Volum
12
e
9
GNP
Seg
Qui
Seg
Qui
Seg
Qui
Agachamento
3x8
3x8
3x8
3x8
3x8
3x8
C.Extensora
2x8
2x8
2x8
2x8
2x8
2x8
320 reps
320 reps
320 reps
GPL
Seg
Qui
Seg
Qui
Seg
Qui
Agachamento
3x12
2x12
4x8
4x8
3x4
3x4
C.Extensora
2x12
2x12
2x8
2x8
2x4
2x4
GPO
Seg
Qui
Seg
Qui
Seg
Qui
Agachamento
2*12
4*6
3x10
4x6
2x8
4x4
C.Extensora
3x12
3x6
2x10
2x6
2x8
2x4
423 reps
408 reps
384 reps
344 reps
160 reps
224 reps
Reps/dia
960
40
976
40,6
976
40,6
GNP-grupo não-periodizado; GPL- grupo periodizado-linear; GPO- grupo periodizadoondulado. Reps- repetições. Seg- segunda-feira; Qui- quinta-feira. C.Extensoracadeira extensora.
Fonseca&et&al.,&2014&
4.9. Análise estatística
De&Souza,&2014&
Técnicas de inspeção visual e o teste de Shapiro-Wilk confirmaram a ausência
41
de observações extremas e a normalidade dos dados. Então, foi utilizado um modelo
misto assumindo grupo (quatro níveis) e tempo (três níveis) como fatores fixos e os
sujeitos como fator aleatório para cada variável dependente. Na ocorrência de razão
de valores F significante, foi utilizado um ajustamento de Tukey para efeito de
comparações múltiplas. O valor de significância adotado foi de p<0,05 e os dados
estão apresentados como média e desvio padrão. Adicionalmente, foram calculados o
tamanho do efeito (TE) intragrupo (e.g. médias 6 e 12 semanas- média prétreinamento/ desvio padrão pré-treinamento) (COHEN, 1988; UGRINOWITSCH,
FELLINGHAM e RICARD, 2004).
5. RESULTADOS
5.1. Volume total de treinamento
Ao final do período experimental foi observado um volume total de treino similar
entre os grupos GNP, GPL e GPO: 92.598 ± 15.340kg, 92.973kg ± 10.760kg e 108.367
Periodização&e&Hipertrofia&
± 18.316kg (p>0,05, FIGURA 4A e 4B). Em média, os participantes dos grupos
experimentais treinaram com um volume total de 4.450,7 (±160kg) por sessão de
Periodização&e&Hipertrofia&
45
treinamento.
FIGURA 4- A) dados de volume total ( [séries x repetições x kg (agachamento) + séries
FIGURA 7 – Valores de área de secção transversa muscular do quadríceps (ASTM)
x repetições x kg (cadeira extensora]) para os grupos não-periodizado (GNP),
(média ± DP). * - p<0,05 diferença significantes com relação aos valores (Pré). #-
periodizado-linear (GPL) e periodizado-ondulado (GPO). B) intervalos de confiança
p<0,05 diferença significante com relação aos valores de seis semanas. GNP- grupo
das comparações múltiplas do volume total.
não-periodizado, GPL- grupo periodizado-linear, GPO- grupo periodizado-ondulado.
De&Souza,&2014&
De&Souza,&2014&
26&
9/24/14&
Força&x&Potência&
Força&x&Potência&
Lamas&et&al.,&2010&
Lamas&et&al.,&2009&
Molecular adaptation to resistance training
Table 5. Fiber types cross sectional area (mm2) before and after training for strength, power, and control groups (mean " SEM)
Strength training
w
Type I
Type Iia*
Type IIb*
Power training
Control
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
5186.4 " 444.0
5753.2 " 379.4
4647.9 " 343.8
5968.1 " 516.4
6820.1 " 373.3
6569.6 " 364.5
5358.4 " 454.9
5605.2 " 402.1
5509.2 " 453.1
5063.4 " 456.4
6463.0 " 394.7
6579.6 " 418.8
5567.7 " 521.5
5911.6 " 521.2
4946.0 " 465.3
5330.6 " 572.0
6159.8 " 462.1
5388.8 " 424.7
Força&x&Potência&
Velocidade&Exercício&Excêntrico&
Post-test values greater than pre-test values (time main effect, Po0.05).
w
*Post-test values greater than pre-test values (time main effect, Po0.0001).
Roschel et al.
287
Fig. 3. mTOR, RICTOR, RAPTOR and 4EBP-1 (AU) gene expression (ratio between the mRNA
expression of the gene of interest
and the internal standard) for the
strength (ST) and power training
(PT) and control (C) groups pre
and post a 8-week period (mean
SEM). aPost-test values greater
than pre-test values (Po0.0001).
b
Post-test for the strength and the
PT groups greater than the control
group (Po0.0001). cPost-test values for the strength group greater
than the post-test values for the
power group (Po0.001). dPosttest values for the ST and PT
pooled greater than the pre-test
values (Po0.05).
muscle fiber hypertrophy for all fiber types were
produced mainly by the ST group effect.
Gene expression analysis revealed that mTOR
(effect sizes of 2.8 and 2.3 for the ST and PT,
respectively) and RICTOR (effect sizes 2.2 and 1.4)
mRNA levels increased for both experimental groups
from pre- to post-test (Po0.01). There was no
difference in mTOR and RICTOR between the ST
and the PT in the post-test (P40.05) but they had
higher expression of these genes than the control
group in the post-test [Po0.001, Fig. 3(b) and (c)].
Overall, RAPTOR gene expression showed a similar
behavior but the ST presented higher post-test values
than the PT [Po0.001, Fig. 3(a)]. However, effect
sizes were similar between groups (i.e. 3.0 and 3.1).
There was a main time effect for 4EBP-1. In order to
determine whether this main effect was due to
changes in the training groups, the ST and PT groups
were pooled and compared with the control group.
The pooled data revealed a decreased 4EBP-1 after
training [Po0.05, Fig. 3(d), effect size of ! 1.24].
Lamas&et&al.,&2009&
Calcineurin gene expression did not change in
response to both training regimens. Calcipressin
expression was found to increase for both groups
from pre- to post-test (Po0.01) [Fig. 4(a)]. Calcipressin mRNA level was also increased after both
training regimens compared with the control group
in the post-test (Po0.001) [Fig. 4(b)].
Discussion
In this study, we compared the effect of different two
resistance training regimens on maximum strength
gains, muscle fiber hypertrophy and phenotype shift
and determined the expression of the genes involved
in skeletal muscle plasticity. Our main findings were:
(1) strength increased similarly between training
protocols; (2) fiber cross-sectional area increased
for both training regimens; however, there was a
trend toward greater increases in the ST group; (3)
mTOR, RAPTOR and RICTOR gene expression
Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 201.81.148.68 on 04/17/11
For personal use only.
Fig. 1. Mechanical output during EE. (a) Peak eccentric torque over 5 sets of 8 eccentric contractions. (b) Total work performed over 5 sets of
8 eccentric contractions. (c) Total impulse over 5 sets of 8 eccentric contractions. (d) Impulse in each of the 5 sets. *, p < 0.05 compared with
EF. EE, eccentric exercise; ES, slow EE; EF, fast EE.
Fig. 2. Mechano growth factor (MGF) mRNA expression in ES and
EF. EE, eccentric exercise; ES, slow EE; EF, fast EE; B, baseline;
T1, immediately after EE; and T2, 2 h after EE. *, p < 0.05 compared with B.
torque production through the range of motion and time
under tension (Crewther et al. 2005). Therefore, contraction
velocity has a direct effect on time under tension, accounting
for the significant differences observed for total impulse values. Indeed, time under tension in the ES group was 10-fold
that of the EF. While the ES group performed the EE at
20°·s–1, resulting in a 4.5-s (90° range of motion) time under
tension, the fast velocity of the EF group allowed only 0.43 s
under tension because of the high movement speed (210°·s–1).
Despite the lesser time under tension in the EF group, it is
possible that fast EE may have induced a higher mechanical
overload than slow EE (Enoka 1996; Chapman et al. 2008).
In fact, it is known that resistance-exercise–induced mechanical overload increases MGF mRNA expression (Rommel et
al. 2001; Goldspink 2005; Heinemeier et al. 2007; Liu et al.
2008), which in turn is related to Akt/mTORCI/p70S6K pathway activation (Kimball et al. 2002; Sartorelli and Fulco
2004).
Interestingly, although only the ES protocol induced a significant increase in MGF mRNA expression from B to T2,
these values were not different between the groups, and
greater Akt/mTORCI/p70S6K activation, compared with EF,
was not observed. Again, it may be that the greater muscle
tension imposed during EF accounted for an increased
mechanotransduction, resulting in similar downstream signaling activation (Burkholder 2007). In fact, it has been proposed that the skeletal muscle hypertrophy following EF is
related to Z band streaming (Shepstone et al. 2005). Z bands
are critical sites for mechanotransduction, because of the
presence of phospholipase D (Hornberger et al. 2006a). The
increased muscle tension during EF may lead to greater activation of phospholipase D; it has been suggested that this mediates stretch-induced signaling, activating mTORCI/p70S6K
Roschel&et&al.,2011&&
Published by NRC Research Press
5
27&
9/24/14&
288
Velocidade&Exercício&Excêntrico&
Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. Vol. 36, 2011
Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 201.81.148.68 on 04/17/11
For personal use only.
Fig. 3. Changes in total protein and protein phosphorylation. (a) Akt. (b) Akt phosphorylation. (c) mTOR. (d) mTOR phosphorylation.
(e) p70S6k1. (f ) p70S6k1 phosphorylation. EE, eccentric exercise; ES, slow EE; EF, fast EE; B, baseline; T1, immediately after EE; T2, 2 h
after EE. *, p < 0.05 compared with B.
OBRIGADO&!!!!!&
&
[email protected]&
in an Akt-independent way (Hornberger et al. 2006a,
2006b). Additionally, it has been demonstrated that phosphatidic acid (resulting from increased phospholipase D activity) may activate p70S6K in an mTOR-independent
fashion (Lehman et al. 2007). Thus, it is possible that
muscle tension plays a role in velocity-specific hypertrophy
pathway activation, which may have compensated for the
time-under-tension difference observed between EF and ES.
Regardless of the interesting findings herein, caution
should be exercised when interpreting and extrapolating these
data. Given the inherent heterogeneity in the molecular responses after resistance training, a within-subject and (or)
within-leg design would be optimal. However, it is important
to note that even though such a design would be the most efficient in minimizing data variability, it would add great bias
to our findings. EE is known to induce muscle damage,
which may increase protein synthesis, activating the pathways we assessed in this study. Conversely, a single bout of
EE is known to produce the repeated-bout effect, which is
characterized by a strong minimization of EE-induced muscle
damage (Nosaka and Clarkson 1995; Barroso et al. 2010)
and activation of the Akt/mTORCI/p70S6K pathway (V. Tricoli, A. Blazevich, C. Ugrinowitsch, M.S. Aoki, and K, No-
saka 2010, unpublished data). The repeated-bout effect
induced by a within-leg design could negatively affect our results, masking the effect of exercise velocity. Furthermore,
EE is known to cause the greatest cross-education among
muscle actions (Hortobágyi et al. 1997; Farthing and Chilibeck 2003a), affecting peak torque and total work between
testing sessions. Finally, there is evidence of a contralateral
repeated-bout effect (Howatson and Van Someren 2007),
hampering the adoption of a within-subject design. In addition, one may argue that the EE was not matched for time
under tension (TUT). However, matching TUT would require
a far greater number of contractions in the EF group. Exercise volume has been demonstrated to play a role in the magnitude of exercise-induced muscle damage (Nosaka et al.
2001, 2002; Chapman et al. 2006, 2008; Chen and Nosaka
2006), affecting protein phosphorylation. Despite the importance of understanding the molecular responses to EE in
TUT-matched conditions, previous studies have shown
greater muscle hypertrophy with fast EE when total work,
but not TUT, was matched (Farthing and Chilibeck 2003b;
Shepstone et al. 2005). Last, it has been demonstrated that
type II fibers contribute to a larger degree to the increase in
the phosphorylation of p70S6K after EE (Tannerstedt et al.
Roschel&et&al.,2011&&
Published by NRC Research Press
28&