Top

European Journal of Applied Physiology

Published in:

01-01-2020 | Original Article

Eight weeks of resistance training increases strength, muscle cross-sectional area and motor unit size, but does not alter firing rates in the vastus lateralis

Authors: Adam J. Sterczala, Jonathan D. Miller, Hannah L. Dimmick, Mandy E. Wray, Michael A. Trevino, Trent J. Herda

Published in: European Journal of Applied Physiology | Issue 1/2020

Abstract

Purpose

Previous investigations analyzing resistance training’s influence on motor unit (MU) firing rates have yielded mixed results. These mixed results may be clarified by concurrently measuring changes in MU size. Thus, this study analyzed whether post-training strength gains were due to increases in MU firing rates and/or sizes as measured indirectly via action potential amplitudes.

Methods

Sixteen males (age = 20.7 ± 1.9 years) completed 8 weeks of resistance training, while eight males (age = 19.4 ± 2.5 years) served as controls. Vastus lateralis surface electromyography signals collected during submaximal isometric knee extensions were decomposed to yield an action potential amplitude (MUAP_AMP), mean firing rate (MFR), and recruitment threshold (RT) for each MU. Each contraction’s average MFR and MUAP_AMP, and coefficients of the linear (y-intercept and slope) MUAP_AMP-RT, linear MFR-RT and exponential (A and B terms) MFR–MUAP_AMP relationships were analyzed. Firing instances and action potentials were validated via reconstruct-and-test and spike-triggered averaging procedures. Vastus lateralis cross-sectional area (CSA) was analyzed with ultrasonography.

Results

Resistance training increased isometric strength from 204.6 ± 34.9 to 239.8 ± 36.3 Nm and vastus lateralis CSA from 28.7 ± 4.7 to 34.0 ± 5.0 cm². Resistance training did not affect MFR–RT relationship parameters or average MFRs but did increase the slopes of the MUAP_AMP–RT relationships (0.0067 ± 0.0041 to 0.0097 ± 0.0045 mV/%MVC) and average MUAP_AMPs from 0.189 ± 0.093 to 0.249 ± 0.127 mV. MU hypertrophy altered the MFR–MUAP_AMP relationships (B terms: − 3.63 ± 1.40 to − 2.66 ± 1.38 pps/mV).

Conclusion

Resistance training induced MU and muscle hypertrophy, but did not alter firing rates. Greater MU twitch forces resulting from larger MUs firing at pre-training rates likely explain resistance training strength gains.

Balshaw TG, Massey GJ, Maden-Wilkinson TM, Morales-Artacho AJ, McKeown A, Appleby CL, Folland JP (2017) Changes in agonist neural drive, hypertrophy and pre-training strength all contribute to the individual strength gains after resistance training. Eur J Appl Physiol 117(4):631–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-017-3560-x CrossRefPubMed

Beck TW, J.M. D, M.S. S (2011) The effects of a resistance training program on average motor unit firing rates. Clin Kinesiol (65):1–8

Bottinelli R, Schiaffino S, Reggiani C (1991) Force-velocity relations and myosin heavy chain isoform compositions of skinned fibres from rat skeletal muscle. J Physiol 437:655–672CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Burke RE, Levine DN, Zajac FE 3rd (1971) Mammalian motor units: physiological-histochemical correlation in three types in cat gastrocnemius. Science 174(4010):709–712CrossRefPubMed

Carolan B, Cafarelli E (1992) Adaptations in coactivation after isometric resistance training. J Appl Physiol 73(3):911–917. https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1992.73.3.911 CrossRefPubMed

Chang SS, De Luca CJ, Nawab S (2008) Aliasing rejection in precision decomposition of EMG signals. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2008:4972–4975. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEMBS.2008.4650330 CrossRef

Colquhoun RJ, Magrini MA, Haun CT, Muddle TWD, Tomko PM, Luera MJ, Mackey CS, Vann CG, Martin JS, Young KC, DeFreitas JM, Roberts MD, Jenkins NDM (2018) Muscle phenotype is related to motor unit behavior of the vastus lateralis during maximal isometric contractions. Physiol Rep 6(5). https://doi.org/10.14814/phy2.13636

Contessa P, De Luca CJ, Kline JC (2016) The compensatory interaction between motor unit firing behavior and muscle force during fatigue. J Neurophysiol 116(4):1579–1585. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00347.2016 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Damas F, Libardi CA, Ugrinowitsch C, Vechin FC, Lixandrao ME, Snijders T, Nederveen JP, Bacurau AV, Brum P, Tricoli V, Roschel H, Parise G, Phillips SM (2018) Early- and later-phases satellite cell responses and myonuclear content with resistance training in young men. PLoS ONE 13(1):e0191039. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191039 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

De Luca CJ, Erim Z (1994) Common drive of motor units in regulation of muscle force. Trends Neurosci 17(7):299–305CrossRefPubMed

De Luca CJ, Hostage EC (2010) Relationship between firing rate and recruitment threshold of motoneurons in voluntary isometric contractions. J Neurophysiol 104(2):1034–1046. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.01018.2009 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

De Luca CJ, Adam A, Wotiz R, Gilmore LD, Nawab SH (2006) Decomposition of surface EMG signals. J Neurophysiol 96(3):1646–1657. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00009.2006 CrossRefPubMed

Del Vecchio A, Casolo A, Negro F, Scorcelletti M, Bazzucchi I, Enoka R, Felici F, Farina D (2019) The increase in muscle force after 4 weeks of strength training is mediated by adaptations in motor unit recruitment and rate coding. J Physiol. https://doi.org/10.1113/JP277250 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Dimmick HL, Miller JD, Sterczala AJ, Trevino MA, Herda TJ (2018) Vastus lateralis muscle tissue composition and motor unit properties in chronically endurance-trained vs. sedentary women. Eur J Appl Physiol. https://doi.orrg/10.1007/s00421-018-3909-9

Eddinger TJ, Moss RL (1987) Mechanical properties of skinned single fibers of identified types from rat diaphragm. Am J Physiol 253(2 Pt 1):C210–218CrossRefPubMed

Enoka RM, Duchateau J (2015) Inappropriate interpretation of surface EMG signals and muscle fiber characteristics impedes understanding of the control of neuromuscular function. J Appl Physiol 119(12):1516–1518. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00280.2015 CrossRefPubMed

Erskine RM, Fletcher G, Folland JP (2014) The contribution of muscle hypertrophy to strength changes following resistance training. Eur J Appl Physiol 114(6):1239–1249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-014-2855-4 CrossRefPubMed

Farina D, Holobar A, Merletti R, Enoka RM (2010) Decoding the neural drive to muscles from the surface electromyogram. Clin Neurophysiol 121(10):1616–1623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2009.10.040 CrossRefPubMed

Farina D, Merletti R, Enoka RM (2014) The extraction of neural strategies from the surface EMG: an update. J Appl Physiol 117(11):1215–1230. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00162.2014 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Gabriel DA, Kamen G, Frost G (2006) Neural adaptations to resistive exercise: mechanisms and recommendations for training practices. Sports Med 36(2):133–149CrossRefPubMed

Hakansson CH (1956) Conduction velocity and amplitude of the action potential as related to circumference in the isolated fibre of frog muscle. Acta Physiol Scand 37(1):14–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-1716.1956.tb01338.x CrossRefPubMed

Helms ER, Cronin J, Storey A, Zourdos MC (2016) Application of the repetitions in reserve-based rating of perceived exertion scale for resistance training. Strength Cond J 38(4):42–49. https://doi.org/10.1519/SSC.0000000000000218 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Henneman E, Olson CB (1965) Relations between structure and function in the design of skeletal muscles. J Neurophysiol 28:581–598CrossRefPubMed

Herda TJ, Trevino MA, Sterczala AJ, Miller JD, Wray ME, Dimmick HL, Gallagher PM, Fry AC (2019) Muscular strength and power are correlated with motor unit action potential amplitudes, but not myosin heavy chain isoforms in sedentary males and females. J Biomech 86:251–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2019.01.050 CrossRefPubMed

Hu X, Rymer WZ, Suresh NL (2013a) Assessment of validity of a high-yield surface electromyogram decomposition. J Neuroeng Rehabil 10:99. https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-0003-10-99 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Hu X, Rymer WZ, Suresh NL (2013b) Motor unit pool organization examined via spike-triggered averaging of the surface electromyogram. J Neurophysiol 110(5):1205–1220. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00301.2012 CrossRefPubMed

Hu X, Rymer WZ, Suresh NL (2013c) Reliability of spike triggered averaging of the surface electromyogram for motor unit action potential estimation. Muscle Nerve 48(4):557–570. https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.23819 CrossRefPubMed

Jenkins NDM, Miramonti AA, Hill EC, Smith CM, Cochrane-Snyman KC, Housh TJ, Cramer JT (2017) Greater neural adaptations following high- vs low-load resistance training. Front Physiol 8:331. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2017.00331 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kamen G, Knight CA (2004) Training-related adaptations in motor unit discharge rate in young and older adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 59(12):1334–1338CrossRefPubMed

Knight CA, Kamen G (2001) Adaptations in muscular activation of the knee extensor muscles with strength training in young and older adults. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 11(6):405–412CrossRefPubMed

Martinez-Valdes E, Laine CM, Falla D, Mayer F, Farina D (2016) High-density surface electromyography provides reliable estimates of motor unit behavior. Clin Neurophysiol 127(6):2534–2541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2015.10.065 CrossRefPubMed

McManus L, Hu X, Rymer WZ, Lowery MM, Suresh NL (2015) Changes in motor unit behavior following isometric fatigue of the first dorsal interosseous muscle. J Neurophysiol 113(9):3186–3196. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00146.2015 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Miller JD, Sterczala AJ, Trevino MA, Wray ME, Dimmick HL, Herda TJ (2019) Motor unit action potential amplitudes and firing rates during repetitive muscle actions of the first dorsal interosseous in children and adults. Eur J Appl Physiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-019-04090-0 CrossRefPubMed

Moritani T, deVries HA (1979) Neural factors versus hypertrophy in the time course of muscle strength gain. Am J Phys Med 58(3):115–130PubMed

Nawab SH, Chang SS, De Luca CJ (2010) High-yield decomposition of surface EMG signals. Clin Neurophysiol 121(10):1602–1615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2009.11.092 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Olson CB, Carpenter DO, Henneman E (1968) Orderly recruitment of muscle action potentials. Arch Neurol 19(6):591–597CrossRefPubMed

Patten C, Kamen G, Rowland DM (2001) Adaptations in maximal motor unit discharge rate to strength training in young and older adults. Muscle Nerve 24(4):542–550CrossRefPubMed

Person RS, Kudina LP (1972) Discharge frequency and discharge pattern of human motor units during voluntary contraction of muscle. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 32(5):471–483CrossRefPubMed

Pope ZK, Hester GM, Benik FM, DeFreitas JM (2016) Action potential amplitude as a noninvasive indicator of motor unit-specific hypertrophy. J Neurophysiol 115(5):2608–2614. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00039.2016 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Pucci AR, Griffin L, Cafarelli E (2006) Maximal motor unit firing rates during isometric resistance training in men. Exp Physiol 91(1):171–178. https://doi.org/10.1113/expphysiol.2005.032094 CrossRefPubMed

Rich C, Cafarelli E (2000) Submaximal motor unit firing rates after 8 wk of isometric resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 32(1):190–196CrossRefPubMed

Snijders T, Smeets JS, van Kranenburg J, Kies AK, van Loon LJ, Verdijk LB (2016) Changes in myonuclear domain size do not precede muscle hypertrophy during prolonged resistance-type exercise training. Acta Physiol (Oxf) 216(2):231–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/apha.12609 CrossRef

Sterczala AJ, Herda TJ, Miller JD, Ciccone AB, Trevino MA (2017) Age-related differences in the motor unit action potential size in relation to recruitment threshold. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1111/cpf.12453 CrossRefPubMed

Sterczala AJ, Miller JD, Trevino MA, Dimmick HL, Herda TJ (2018) Differences in the motor unit firing rates and amplitudes in relation to recruitment thresholds during submaximal contractions of the first dorsal interosseous between chronically resistance trained and physically active men. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2017-0646 CrossRefPubMed

Stock MS, Thompson BJ (2014) Effects of barbell deadlift training on submaximal motor unit firing rates for the vastus lateralis and rectus femoris. PLoS ONE 9(12):e115567. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115567 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Thompson CK, Negro F, Johnson MD, Holmes MR, McPherson LM, Powers RK, Farina D, Heckman CJ (2018) Robust and accurate decoding of motoneuron behaviour and prediction of the resulting force output. J Physiol 596(14):2643–2659. https://doi.org/10.1113/JP276153 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Trevino MA, Herda TJ, Fry AC, Gallagher PM, Vardiman JP, Mosier EM, Miller JD (2016) The influence of myosin heavy chain isoform content on mechanical behavior of the vastus lateralis in vivo. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 28:143–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2016.04.005 CrossRefPubMed

Trevino MA, Sterczala AJ, Miller JD, Wray ME, Dimmick HL, Ciccone AB, Weir JP, Gallagher PM, Fry AC, Herda TJ (2018) Sex-related differences in muscle size explained by amplitudes of higher-threshold motor unit action potentials and muscle fibre typing. Acta Physiol (Oxf):e13151. https://doi.org/10.1111/apha.13151

Van Cutsem M, Duchateau J, Hainaut K (1998) Changes in single motor unit behaviour contribute to the increase in contraction speed after dynamic training in humans. J Physiol 513(Pt 1):295–305CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Vila-Cha C, Falla D, Farina D (2010) Motor unit behavior during submaximal contractions following six weeks of either endurance or strength training. J Appl Physiol 109(5):1455–1466. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.01213.2009 CrossRefPubMed

Walker S, Hulmi JJ, Wernbom M, Nyman K, Kraemer WJ, Ahtiainen JP, Hakkinen K (2013) Variable resistance training promotes greater fatigue resistance but not hypertrophy versus constant resistance training. Eur J Appl Physiol 113(9):2233–2244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-013-2653-4 CrossRefPubMed

Watanabe K, Holobar A, Kouzaki M, Ogawa M, Akima H, Moritani T (2016) Age-related changes in motor unit firing pattern of vastus lateralis muscle during low-moderate contraction. Age (Dordr) 38(3):48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11357-016-9915-0 CrossRef

Title: Eight weeks of resistance training increases strength, muscle cross-sectional area and motor unit size, but does not alter firing rates in the vastus lateralis
Authors: Adam J. Sterczala
Jonathan D. Miller
Hannah L. Dimmick
Mandy E. Wray
Michael A. Trevino
Trent J. Herda
Publication date: 01-01-2020
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Journal of Applied Physiology / Issue 1/2020
Print ISSN: 1439-6319
Electronic ISSN: 1439-6327
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-019-04273-9

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Eight weeks of resistance training increases strength, muscle cross-sectional area and motor unit size, but does not alter firing rates in the vastus lateralis

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Acute hypotension attenuates brachial flow-mediated dilation in young healthy men

Surface properties affect the interplay between fascicles and tendinous tissues during landing

Comparison among three different intensities of eccentric contractions of the elbow flexors resulting in the same strength loss at one day post-exercise for changes in indirect muscle damage markers

Peripheral fatigue: new mechanistic insights from recent technologies

The energy cost of swimming and its determinants

Historical reviews of the assessment of human cardiovascular function: interrogation and understanding of the control of skin blood flow