Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Sports Medicine
Published in: Sports Medicine 9/2021

01-09-2021 | Original Research Article

A Retrospective Analysis to Determine Whether Training-Induced Changes in Muscle Thickness Mediate Changes in Muscle Strength

Authors: Matthew B. Jessee, Scott J. Dankel, John P. Bentley, Jeremy P. Loenneke

Published in: Sports Medicine | Issue 9/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

To investigate the role of muscle thickness changes on changes in strength following 6 weeks of unaccustomed resistance training, via retrospective analysis.

Methods

151 participants completed 6 weeks of no intervention (CONTROL), one-repetition maximum training (1RM-TRAIN), or traditional resistance training (TRAD-TRAIN). Groups were assigned by covariate adaptive randomization. 1RM-TRAIN and TRAD-TRAIN performed elbow flexion exercise on the dominant arm 3 times/week. One-repetition maximum strength and muscle thickness (B-mode ultrasound at 50, 60, and 70% of the anterior upper arm) were assessed pre- and post-training. Direct and indirect effects on strength via each training modality were quantified relative to CONTROL using indicator-coded, change-score mediation analyses for each muscle thickness site. Values are presented as regression coefficients (95% CI).

Results

The effect of 1RM-TRAIN on muscle thickness was greater than CONTROL for 60% [0.09 (0.01, 0.17) cm] and 70% [0.09 (0.01,0.18) cm] models. All muscle thickness changes for TRAD-TRAIN were greater than CONTROL: 50% [0.24 (0.16, 0.33) cm], 60% [0.25 (0.17, 0.33) cm], 70% [0.23 (0.14, 0.32) cm]. All direct effects on strength were greater for 1RM-TRAIN versus CONTROL: 50% [1.90 (1.21, 2.58) kg], 60% [1.89 (1.19, 2.58) kg], 70% [1.81 (1.12, 2.51) kg]; and TRAD-TRAIN versus CONTROL: 50% [2.04 (1.29, 2.80) kg], 60% [1.98 (1.22, 2.75) kg], 70% [1.79 (1.05, 2.53) kg]. Compared to CONTROL, there was no indication of an effect of 1RM-TRAIN on strength through muscle thickness (i.e., indirect effect) for 50% [− 0.03 (− 0.17, 0.10)], 60% [− 0.01 (− 0.17, 0.17)], or 70% [0.07 (− 0.09, 0.28)] sites, nor of TRAD-TRAIN for 50% [− 0.11 (− 0.48,0.29)], 60% [− 0.04 (− 0.42, 0.40)], and 70% sites [0.17 (− 0.23,0.58)].

Conclusion

Training-induced changes in muscle thickness do not appear to appreciably mediate training-induced changes in the strength of untrained individuals during the first 6 weeks of training.
Literature
1.
Garber CE, Blissmer B, Deschenes MR, Franklin BA, Lamonte MJ, Lee IM, et al. Quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and neuromotor fitness in apparently healthy adults: guidance for prescribing exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43:1334–59.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Folland JP, Williams AG. The adaptations to strength training: morphological and neurological contributions to increased strength. Sport Med. 2007;37:145–68.CrossRef
3.
Loenneke JP, Buckner SL, Dankel SJ, Abe T. Exercise-induced changes in muscle size do not contribute to exercise-induced changes in muscle strength. Sport Med. 2019;49:987–91.CrossRef
4.
Loenneke JP, Dankel SJ, Bell ZW, Buckner SL, Mattocks KT, Jessee MB, et al. Is muscle growth a mechanism for increasing strength? Med Hypotheses. 2019;125:51–6.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Buckner SL, Dankel SJ, Mattocks KT, Jessee MB, Mouser JG, Counts BR, et al. The problem of muscle hypertrophy: revisited. Muscle Nerve. 2016;54:1012–4.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Hornsby WG, Gentles JA, Haff GG, Stone MH, Buckner SL, Dankel SJ, et al. What is the impact of muscle hypertrophy on strength and sport performance? Strength Cond J. 2018;40:99–111.CrossRef
7.
Taber CB, Vigotsky A, Nuckols G, Haun CT. Exercise-induced myofibrillar hypertrophy is a contributory cause of gains in muscle strength. Sport Med. 2019;49:993–7.CrossRef
8.
Moritani T, deVries HA. Neural factors versus hypertrophy in the time course of muscle strength gain. Am J Phys Med. 1979;58:115–30.PubMed
9.
Mattocks KT, Buckner SL, Jessee MB, Dankel SJ, Mouser JG, Loenneke JP. Practicing the test produces strength equivalent to higher volume training. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2017;49:1945–54.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Nuzzo JL, Finn HT, Herbert RD. Causal mediation analysis could resolve whether training-induced increases in muscle strength are mediated by muscle hypertrophy. Sport Med. 2019;49:1309–15.CrossRef
11.
Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51:1173–82.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Franchi MV, Longo S, Mallinson J, Quinlan JI, Taylor T, Greenhaff PL, et al. Muscle thickness correlates to muscle cross-sectional area in the assessment of strength training-induced hypertrophy. Scand J Med Sci Sport. 2018;28:846–53.CrossRef
13.
Dankel SJ, Bell ZW, Spitz RW, Wong V, Viana RB, Chatakondi RN, et al. Assessing differential responders and mean changes in muscle size, strength, and the crossover effect to 2 distinct resistance training protocols. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2020;45:463–70.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Fritz MS, MacKinnon DP. Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychol Sci. 2007;18:233–9.PubMedCrossRef
15.
16.
Hayes AF, Preacher KJ. Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 2014;67:451–70.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Roth DL, MacKinnon DP. Mediation analysis with longitudinal data. In: Newsom J, Jones R, Hofer S, editors. Longitudinal data analysis: a practical guide for researchers in aging, health, and social sciences. New York: Routledge; 2012. p. 181–216.
18.
Hays AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. 2nd ed. New York: The Guilford Press; 2018.
19.
Muthén B, Asparouhov T. Causal effects in mediation modeling: an introduction with applications to latent variables. Struct Equ Model. 2015;22:12–23.CrossRef
20.
Hayes AF, Montoya AK, Rockwood NJ. The analysis of mechanisms and their contingencies: PROCESS versus structural equation modeling. Australas Mark J. 2017;25:76–81.CrossRef
21.
Muthén B, Muthén L, Asparouhov T. Regression and mediation analysis using Mplus. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén; 2016.
22.
VanderWeele T. Explanation in causal inference: methods for mediation and interaction. New York: Oxford University Press; 2015.
23.
24.
Valeri L, VanderWeele TJ. Mediation analysis allowing for exposure-mediator interactions and causal interpretation: theoretical assumptions and implementation with SAS and SPSS macros. Psychol Methods. 2013;18:137–50.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
25.
Imai K, Keele L, Tingley D. A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychol Methods. 2010;15:309–34.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Imai K, Keele L, Yamamoto T. Identification, inference and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects. Stat Sci. 2010;25:51–71.CrossRef
27.
28.
Housh DJ, Housh TJ, Johnson GO, Chu WK. Hypertrophic response to unilateral concentric isokinetic resistance training. J Appl Physiol. 1992;73:65–70.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Brook MS, Wilkinson DJ, Mitchell WK, Lund JN, Szewczyk NJ, Greenhaff PL, et al. Skeletal muscle hypertrophy adaptations predominate in the early stages of resistance exercise training, matching deuterium oxide-derived measures of muscle protein synthesis and mechanistic target of rapamycin complex 1 signaling. FASEB J. 2015;29:4485–96.PubMedCrossRef
30.
DeFreitas JM, Beck TW, Stock MS, Dillon MA, Kasishke PR. An examination of the time course of training-induced skeletal muscle hypertrophy. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011;111:2785–90.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Seynnes OR, De Boer M, Narici MV. Early skeletal muscle hypertrophy and architectural changes in response to high-intensity resistance training. J Appl Physiol. 2007;102:368–73.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Mallinson JE, Taylor T, Constantin-Teodosiu D, Billeter-Clark R, Constantin D, Franchi MV, et al. Longitudinal hypertrophic and transcriptional responses to high-load eccentric-concentric vs concentric training in males. Scand J Med Sci Sport. 2020;30:2101–15.CrossRef
33.
Stock MS, Mota JA, DeFranco RN, Grue KA, Jacobo AU, Chung E, et al. The time course of short-term hypertrophy in the absence of eccentric muscle damage. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2017;117:989–1004.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Loenneke JP, Dankel SJ, Bell ZW, Spitz RW, Abe T, Yasuda T. Ultrasound and MRI measured changes in muscle mass gives different estimates but similar conclusions: a Bayesian approach. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2019;73:1203–5.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Ikai M, Fukunaga T. A study on training effect on strength per unit cross-sectional area of muscle by means of ultrasonic measurement. Int Zeitschrift für Angew Physiol Einschließlich Arbeitsphysiologie. 1970;28:173–80.
36.
Ahtiainen JP, Walker S, Peltonen H, Holviala J, Sillanpää E, Karavirta L, et al. Heterogeneity in resistance training-induced muscle strength and mass responses in men and women of different ages. Age. 2016;38:1–13.CrossRef
37.
Maeo S, Shan X, Otsuka S, Kanehisa H, Kawakami Y. Neuromuscular adaptations to work-matched maximal eccentric versus concentric training. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2018;50:1629–40.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
38.
Erskine RM, Fletcher G, Folland JP. The contribution of muscle hypertrophy to strength changes following resistance training. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2014;114:1239–49.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Dankel SJ, Counts BR, Barnett BE, Buckner SL, Abe T, Loenneke JP. Muscle adaptations following 21 consecutive days of strength test familiarization compared with traditional training. Muscle Nerve. 2017;56:307–14.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Counts BR, Buckner SL, Dankel SJ, Jessee MB, Mattocks KT, Mouser JG, et al. The acute and chronic effects of “No Load” resistance training. Physiol Behav. 2016;164:345–52.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Jessee MB, Buckner SL, Grant Mouser J, Mattocks KT, Dankel SJ, Abe T, et al. Muscle adaptations to high-load training and very low-load training with and without blood flow restriction. Front Physiol. 2018;9:1448.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
42.
Mitchell CJ, Churchward-Venne TA, West DWD, Burd NA, Breen L, Baker SK, et al. Resistance exercise load does not determine training-mediated hypertrophic gains in young men. J Appl Physiol. 2012;113:71–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
43.
Morton RW, Oikawa SY, Wavell CG, Mazara N, McGlory C, Quadrilatero J, et al. Neither load nor systemic hormones determine resistance training-mediated hypertrophy or strength gains in resistance-trained young men. J Appl Physiol. 2016;121:129–38.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
44.
Cartwright MS, Demar S, Griffin LP, Balakrishnan N, Harris JM, Walker FO. Validity and reliability of nerve and muscle ultrasound. Muscle Nerve. 2013;47:515–21.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Spitz RW, Bell ZW, Wong V, Yamada Y, Song JS, Buckner SL, et al. Strength testing or strength training: considerations for future research. Physiol Meas. 2020;41:09TR01.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Miller BF, Olesen JL, Hansen M, Døssing S, Crameri RM, Welling RJ, et al. Coordinated collagen and muscle protein synthesis in human patella tendon and quadriceps muscle after exercise. J Physiol. 2005;567:1021–33.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
47.
Miller BF, Hansen M, Olesen JL, Flyvbjerg A, Schwarz P, Babraj JA, et al. No effect of menstrual cycle on myofibrillar and connective tissue protein synthesis in contracting skeletal muscle. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2006;290:163–8.CrossRef
48.
Pratt FH. The all-or-none principle in graded response of skeletal muscle. Am J Physiol Content. 1917;44:517–42.CrossRef
49.
Gandevia SC, Herbert RD, Leeper JB. Voluntary activation of human elbow flexor muscles during maximal concentric contractions. J Physiol. 1998;512:595–602.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Metadata
Title
A Retrospective Analysis to Determine Whether Training-Induced Changes in Muscle Thickness Mediate Changes in Muscle Strength
Authors
Matthew B. Jessee
Scott J. Dankel
John P. Bentley
Jeremy P. Loenneke
Publication date
01-09-2021
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Sports Medicine / Issue 9/2021
Print ISSN: 0112-1642
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2035
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-021-01470-5

Other articles of this Issue 9/2021

Sports Medicine 9/2021 Go to the issue

Systematic Review

Doping Prevalence in Competitive Sport: Evidence Synthesis with “Best Practice” Recommendations and Reporting Guidelines from the WADA Working Group on Doping Prevalence

Correction

Correction to: Is Pre-season Eccentric Strength Testing During the Nordic Hamstring Exercise Associated with Future Hamstring Strain Injury? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Review Article

Crossing the Golden Training Divide: The Science and Practice of Training World-Class 800- and 1500-m Runners

Review Article

Muscle Glycogen Metabolism and High-Intensity Exercise Performance: A Narrative Review

Systematic Review

The Effect of a Single Bout of Continuous Aerobic Exercise on Glucose, Insulin and Glucagon Concentrations Compared to Resting Conditions in Healthy Adults: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression

Original Research Article

Biomechanical Determinants of Performance and Injury Risk During Cutting: A Performance-Injury Conflict?