Longitudinal hypertrophic and transcriptional responses to high-load eccentric-concentric vs concentric training in males.
Longitudinal hypertrophic and transcriptional responses to high-load eccentric-concentric vs concentric training in males.
复制标题
男性对高负荷偏心-向心与向心训练的纵向肥大和转录反应。
DOI：
10.1111/sms.13791
复制
发表时间：
2020
影响因子：
4.1
通讯作者：
Mallinson JE
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Mallinson JE
据说，高负荷偏心训练比同心训练产生更大的肌肉肥大，这可能是由于更大的负荷和/或炎症。我们量化了联合最大向心-偏心训练和最大向心训练对肌肉横截面积(CSA)、体积和靶向mRNA表达的时间影响(93个转录本)。8名娱乐活跃男性(24岁±65岁，体重指数23.5±22.5 kg/m2)在12周内(均为90°/S，3x/wk)进行了3次/30次最大偏心等速膝关节伸展和2次/30次最大向心性膝关节伸展(ECC+Con)。分别于基线、28d和84d测量股四头肌CSA和体积(3T MRI)。分别于基线、24小时(H)、7天、28天和84天取双侧股外侧肌静息组织标本进行mRNA丰度测定(RT-PCR微流控芯片)。在整个训练过程中，ECC+CON比CON的工作量更大(20.8%±99.7%，P<；2.001)。肌肉CSA在28d(Con4.3%±22.6%，ECC+Con 4.0%±31.9%，P<；0.001)和84d(Con3.9%±32.3%，ECC+Con 4.0%±33.1%，P<；)，以及肌肉体积和等长力量在84d(CON 44.8%±40.0%，P<；0.001；ECC+Con 36.9%±34.0%，P<；)较基线增加。(.01)，但在任何参数中都不存在肢体间差异。独创性路径分析发现了几种与肌肉质量和新陈代谢调节相关的细胞功能，这两种方式在24小时和7天都会改变，但尤其是与ECC+Con有关。然而，无论是哪种方式，信使核糖核酸的反应都在此后减弱。肌肉对训练的初始mRNA反应不能反映慢性训练引起的肥大。此外，ECC+CON并没有产生比CON更大的肥厚，尽管在最初的训练周中，ECC+CON的负荷更大，并且有不同的mRNA反应。
High‐load eccentric training reputedly produces greater muscle hypertrophy than concentric training, possibly due to greater loading and/or inflammation. We quantified the temporal impact of combined maximal concentric‐eccentric training vs maximal concentric training on muscle cross‐sectional area (CSA), volume, and targeted mRNA expression (93 transcripts). Eight recreationally active males (24 ± 5 years, BMI 23.5 ± 2.5 kg/m2) performed 3 x 30 maximal eccentric isokinetic knee extensions and 2 x 30 maximal concentric knee extensions in dominant limb (ECC + CON) and 5 x 30 maximal concentric contractions (CON) in the non‐dominant limb for 12 weeks (all 90°/s, 3x/wk). Quadriceps muscle CSA and volume were measured at baseline, 28 days (d), and 84 d in both limbs (3T MRI). Resting vastus lateralis biopsies were obtained from both limbs at baseline, 24 hours (h), 7, 28, and 84 d for mRNA abundance measurements (RT‐PCR microfluidic cards). Work output was greater throughout training in ECC + CON vs CON (20.8 ± 9.7%,P< .001). Muscle CSA increased from baseline in both limbs at 28 d (CON 4.3 ± 2.6%, ECC + CON 4.0 ± 1.9%, bothP< .001) and 84d (CON 3.9 ± 2.3%, ECC + CON 4.0 ± 3.1%, bothP< .001), and muscle volume and isometric strength at 84 d (CON 44.8 ± 40.0%,P< .001; ECC + CON 36.9 ± 40.0%,P< .01), but no between‐limb differences existed in any parameter. Ingenuity Pathway Analysis identified several cellular functions associated with regulation of muscle mass and metabolism as altered by both modalities at 24 h and 7 d, but particularly with ECC + CON. However, mRNA responses waned thereafter, regardless of modality. Initial muscle mRNA responses to training did not reflect chronic training‐induced hypertrophy. Moreover, ECC + CON did not produce greater hypertrophy than CON, despite greater loading throughout and a differential mRNA response during the initial training week.