Molecular Differences in Skeletal Muscle After 1 Week of Active vs. Passive Recovery From High-Volume Resistance Training

• Christopher G. Vann ^[1] ; Cody T. Haun ^[6] ; Shelby C. Osburn ^[1] ; Matthew A. Romero ^[2] ; Paul A. Roberson ^[3] ; Petey W. Mumford ^[4] ; Mobley, C. Brooks ^[5] ; Hudson M. Holmes ^[1] ; Carlton D. Fox ^[1] ; Kaelin C. Young ; Michael D. Roberts
  1. [1] Auburn University

     Auburn University

     Estados Unidos

     
  2. [2] University of California System

     University of California System

     Estados Unidos

     
  3. [3] Pennsylvania State University

     Pennsylvania State University

     Borough of State College, Estados Unidos

     
  4. [4] Lindenwood University

     Lindenwood University

     Township of Rivers, Estados Unidos

     
  5. [5] University of Kentucky

     University of Kentucky

     Estados Unidos

     
  6. [6] LaGrange College, Lagrange, Georgia

  Mostrar afiliaciones +
• Localización: Journal of strength and conditioning research: the research journal of the NSCA, ISSN 1064-8011, Vol. 35, Nº. 8, 2021, págs. 2102-2113
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • Numerous studies have evaluated how deloading after resistance training (RT) affects strength and power outcomes. However, the molecular adaptations that occur after deload periods remain understudied. Trained, college-aged men (n = 30) performed 6 weeks of whole-body RT starting at 10 sets of 10 repetitions per exercise per week and finishing at 32 sets of 10 repetitions per exercise per week. After this period, subjects performed either active (AR; n = 16) or passive recovery (PR; n = 14) for 1 week where AR completed ~15% of the week 6 training volume and PR ceased training. Variables related to body composition and recovery examined before RT (PRE), after 6 weeks of RT (POST), and after the 1-week recovery period (DL). Vastus lateralis (VL) muscle biopsies and blood samples were collected at each timepoint, and various biochemical and histological assays were performed. Group x time interactions (p < 0.05) existed for skeletal muscle myosin heavy chain (MHC)-IIa mRNA (AR > PR at POST and DL) and 20S proteasome activity (post-hoc tests revealed no significance in groups over time). Time effects (P < 0.05) existed for total mood disturbance and serum creatine kinase and mechano growth factor mRNA (POST > PRE &D L), VL pressure to pain threshold and MHC-IIx mRNA (PRE&DL > POST), Atrogin-1 and MuRF-1 mRNA (PRE < POST < DL), MHC-I mRNA (PRE < POST & DL), myostatin mRNA (PRE & POST < DL), and mechanistic target of rapamycin (PRE > POST & DL). No interactions or time effects were observed for barbell squat velocity, various hormones, histological metrics, polyubiquitinated proteins, or phosphorylated/pan protein levels of 4E-BP1, p70S6k, and AMPK. One week of AR after a high-volume training block instigates marginal molecular differences in skeletal muscle relative to PR. From a practical standpoint, however, both paradigms elicited largely similar responses.