Supersets do not change energy expenditure during strength training sessions in physically active individuals.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: The energy expenditure (EE) in strength training (ST) is analyzed both during and after each training session. However, little information exists about the influence of strength exercises supersets on EE. We aimed to determine whether supersets of ST exercises influenced EE during and after one strength exercise session. METHODS: Twenty men were randomly divided to perform either a session with grouped exercises for the same muscle (GE: 26.6 ± 3.4 years; 17.4 ± 3.4 body fat) or a session with separated exercises (SE: 24.9 ± 2.6 years; 15.4 ± 5.9 body fat). Four exercises (5 sets of 8-10 maximum repetitions) for knee extensor muscles and shoulder horizontal flexor muscles were executed in both training sessions. The EE of each experimental session was obtained through the analysis of oxygen uptake during and after exercise (60 minutes postsession). RESULTS: Total work during the session and increases in lactate concentrations were similar between the GE and SE Groups. During exercise, EE was greater in the SE Group when compared with the GE Group (GE: 123.8 ± 14.36 kcal vs. SE: 131.77 ± 20.91 kcal). During the postexercise period, GE induced greater EE when compared with SE (GE: 25.12 ± 7.86 kcal vs. SE: 19.76 ± 5.53 kcal). However, the exercise sequence did not influence overall EE (GE: 148.92 ± 18.72 kcal vs. SE: 151.53 ± 17.97 kcal, p = 0.920). CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that, in physically active men, ST supersets do not influence total EE during and 60 minutes after a single session.

A review on strength exercise-induced muscle damage: applications, adaptation mechanisms and limitations.

This study aims to review the main aspects that induce muscle damage, and to discuss the adaptations of this phenomenon, applications and limitations of this study area. Damage induced by strength training has been utilized for two purposes: 1) verification of the recovery period required between training sessions, which has a direct influence on designing exercise programs; and 2) as indication for higher training intensity, mainly in studies on the "repeated bout effect". There is some speculation about the role of muscle damage in inducing hypertrophy. However, studies demonstrate that exercise-induced muscle damage may not be a consistent indicator of higher chronic hypertrophic response, because hypertrophy also occurs in training strategies with very low mechanical overloads. In addition, aerobic exercise, also induces muscle damage, exhibits no hypertrophic response after training. The remodeling process induced bay muscle damage promotes alterations to strength x length relationship for stretched positions, indicating an increased number of sarcomeres in series, due to strength exercises. Therefore, the study on strength exercise-induced damage seems to be adequate for implementing adequate rest periods to recovery from different sessions of strength training, and not to suggest chronic hypertrophy.

Salivary hormonal responses to resistance exercise in trained and untrained middle-aged men.

AIM: The aim of the present study was to investigate if there are differences in salivary hormonal responses to resistance exercise between long-term strength-trained and untrained men. METHODS: Twenty-eight subjects were recruited to this study, matched into a strength-trained group (SG, N=13) and an untrained group (UG, N=15). Upper and lower body absolute muscle strength was measured through the one-repetition maximum (1-RM) test. Saliva samples were collected at rest and after a resistance exercise protocol (REP) with intensity relative to 1-RM values. With these samples, testosterone (TES), dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) and cortisol (COR) were determined. RESULTS: SG subjects demonstrated significantly higher values in all muscle strength variables. While a significant increase in TES after REP was found in the SG (0.114 + or - 0.1 vs. 0.15 + or - 0.09 pg/mL, P<0.05), no differences were observed in the UG (0.144 + or - 0.1 vs. 0.17 + or - 0.1 pg/mL). In both groups, there were increases in salivary COR (SG: 1.4 + or - 0.6 vs. 2.06 + or - 1; UG: 1.5 + or - 0.8 vs. 2.3 + or - 1.2 ug/dL, P<0.05) and DHEA (SG: 0.6 + or - 0.3 vs. 0.9 + or - 0.6; UG: 0.65 + or - 0.3 vs. 0.97 + or - 0.7 ng/dL, P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest the possible presence of adaptation of TES responses to resistance exercise in long-term strength-trained men, with these subjects presenting higher responses to the same stimulus, compared with untrained subjects, while no such adaptation was seen at the adrenocortical level in these subjects as the responses observed were similar in both groups.