Resistance training chronically lowers the protein synthetic response to training

President Wilson · #1 02-28-2008, 01:59 AM

What do you guys think of this paper?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...t=AbstractPlus

I'm interested in your thoughts and what you feel the implications are!

Venom · #2 02-29-2008, 11:59 PM

I have to read it more, but if it shows what I think it shows, I have seen similar studies. Basically, I think they are accommodated to the training stimulus, and they need to implement progress overload to continue to stimulate growth.

NJI · #3 03-01-2008, 01:18 AM

I think the implication of this article is that we need the 4th horsemen of the apocalypse 2 training guide now more than EVER!!!

Venom · #4 03-01-2008, 01:37 AM

aka Dynamic Destruction!

NJI · #5 03-02-2008, 12:06 AM

It's interesting as I think part of this study displays the power of motor programming.

[ QUOTE ]
Acute resistance exercise increased muscle protein FSR in both legs at 4 h (T: 162 +/- 76%; UT: 108 +/- 62%, P < 0.01 vs. rest) with the increase in the T leg being significantly higher than in the UT leg at this time

[/ QUOTE ]
FSR increased in the untrained leg even though no exercise was performed. The body was making the leg stronger even though nothing had occured!! Though, FSR was higher in the trained leg ( for obvious reasons ).

How does the body increase FSR in the untrained leg when no muscle damage occurs? Are there amino acids entering the untrained leg against their concentration gradient? Is the CNS forcing this increase in FSR?

What about other parts of the body? If they had measured FSR at say, the biceps, would this same increase have been seen in that area?

I have questions and no answers! [img]/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

rickck48 · #6 03-06-2008, 10:34 PM

I find as a layman, in this deep area, I noticed the strength increase in the UT leg. This would seem to say to me, that training could help in a injured person in helping make other parts stronger if they continue to train other bodyparts? Am I correct in this assumption?

MartinofSweden · #7 03-11-2008, 09:27 AM

As a reply to Rick, it´s been known for a while that there is a cross transfer effect to the untrained limb, but this is mainly thought to have to do with neural adaptation. Studies show that the untrained limb gains somewhere around 25% strength of that of the trained limb.

As far as the above mentioned study is concerned I´m not sure how the elevated protein synthesis rate in the untrained limb translates into changes in muscle cross sectional area over a longer period of time. Maybe that´s not even the point, I´m not sure how to interpret the study.

As far as I know though, all studies on unilateral training show growth in the trained limb only. It seems mechanical stimuli is a must for muscle hypertrophy to occur. A new study on trainig with vascular occlusion highlights this. The study shows that there may be a cross transfer effect with vascular occlusion across limbs as well, but only if the non-occluded limb is stimulated mechanically. It would be interesting to hear you guys comment on this.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18202...Pubmed_RVDocSum