No additive effect of creatine, caffeine, and sodium bicarbonate on intense exercise performance in endurance-trained individuals.

BACKGROUND: Athletes commonly use creatine, caffeine, and sodium bicarbonate for performance enhancement. While their isolated effects are well-described, less is known about their potential additive effects. METHODS: Following a baseline trial, we randomized 12 endurance-trained males (age: 25 ± 5 years, VO2max: 56.7 ± 4.6 mL kg-1 min-1; mean ± SD) and 11 females (age: 25 ± 3 years, VO2max: 50.2 ± 3.4 mL kg-1 min-1) to 5 days of creatine monohydrate (0.3 g kg-1 per day) or placebo loading, followed by a daily maintenance dose (0.04 g kg-1) throughout the study. After the loading period, subjects completed four trials in randomized order where they ingested caffeine (3 mg kg-1), sodium bicarbonate (0.3 g kg-1), placebo, or both caffeine and sodium bicarbonate before a maximal voluntary contraction (MVC), 15-s sprint, and 6-min time trial. RESULTS: Compared to placebo, mean power output during 15-s sprint was higher following loading with creatine than placebo (+34 W, 95% CI: 10 to 58, p = 0.008), but with no additional effect of caffeine (+10 W, 95% CI: -7 to 24, p = 0.156) or sodium bicarbonate (+5 W, 95% CI: -4 to 13, p = 0.397). Mean power output during 6-min time trial was higher with caffeine (+12 W, 95% CI: 5 to 18, p = 0.001) and caffeine + sodium bicarbonate (+8 W, 95% CI: 0 to 15, p = 0.038), whereas sodium bicarbonate (-1 W, 95% CI: -7 to 6, p = 0.851) and creatine (-6 W, 95% CI: -15 to 4, p = 0.250) had no effects. CONCLUSION: While creatine and caffeine can enhance sprint- and time trial performance, respectively, these effects do not seem additive. Therefore, supplementing with either creatine or caffeine appears sufficient to enhance sprint or short intense exercise performance.

Myonuclear addition is associated with sex-specific fiber hypertrophy and occurs in relation to fiber perimeter not cross-sectional area.

It is unclear whether resistance training-induced myofiber hypertrophy is affected by sex, and whether myonuclear addition occurs in relation to the myonuclear domain and can contribute to explaining a potential sex-specific hypertrophic response. This study investigated the effect of 8 wk of resistance training on myofiber hypertrophy and myonuclear addition in 12 males (28 ± 7 yr; mean ± SD) and 12 females (27 ± 7 yr). Muscle biopsies were collected from m. vastus lateralis before and after the training intervention and were analyzed by immunohistochemistry for fiber type and size, satellite cells, and myonuclei. Hypertrophy of type I fibers was greater in males than females (P < 0.05), whereas hypertrophy of type II fibers was similar between sexes (P = 0.158-0.419). Expansion of the satellite cell pool (P = 0.132-0.667) and myonuclear addition (P = 0.064-0.228) did not differ significantly between sexes, irrespective of myofiber type. However, when individual responses to resistance training were assessed, myonuclear addition was strongly correlated with fiber hypertrophy (r = 0.68-0.85, P < 0.001). Although myofiber hypertrophy was accompanied by an increase in myonuclear domain (P < 0.05), fiber perimeter per myonucleus remained constant throughout the study (P = 0.096-0.666). These findings indicate that myonuclear addition occurs in relation to the fiber perimeter per myonucleus, not the myonuclear domain, and has a substantial role in resistance training-induced muscle hypertrophy but does not fully explain greater hypertrophy of type I fibers in males than females.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Here, we show that resistance training-induced hypertrophy of type I fibers is greater in males than females. Myonuclear addition was strongly associated with fiber hypertrophy but did not differ between sexes in type I fibers. Furthermore, whereas muscle hypertrophy was accompanied by an increase in myonuclear domain, fiber perimeter per myonucleus remained constant. Thus, myonuclear addition occurs in relation to fiber perimeter during muscle hypertrophy but does not explain sex-specific hypertrophy of type I fibers.

Effects of Periodization on Strength and Muscle Hypertrophy in Volume-Equated Resistance Training Programs: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In resistance training, periodization is often used in an attempt to promote development of strength and muscle hypertrophy. However, it remains unclear how resistance training variables are most effectively periodized to maximize gains in strength and muscle hypertrophy. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to examine the current body of literature to determine whether there is an effect of periodization of training volume and intensity on maximal strength and muscle hypertrophy, and, if so, to determine how these variables are more effectively periodized to promote increases in strength and muscle hypertrophy, when volume is equated between conditions from pre to post intervention. METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus and SPORTDiscus databases. Data from the individual studies were extracted and coded. Meta-analyses using the inverse-variance random effects model were performed to compare 1-repetition maximum (1RM) and muscle hypertrophy outcomes in (a) non-periodized (NP) versus periodized training and (b) in linear periodization (LP) versus undulating periodization (UP). Subgroup analyses examining whether results were affected by training status were performed. Meta-analyses of other periodization model comparisons were not performed, due to a low number of studies. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Results of the meta-analyses comparing NP and periodized training demonstrated an overall effect on 1RM strength favoring periodized training (ES 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.04, 0.57]; Z = 2.28, P = 0.02). In contrast, muscle hypertrophy did not differ between NP and periodized training (ES 0.13, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.36]; Z = 1.10, P = 0.27). Results of the meta-analyses comparing LP and UP indicated an overall effect on 1RM favoring UP (ES 0.31, 95% CI [0.02, 0.61]; Z = 2.06, P = 0.04). Subgroup analyses indicated an effect on 1RM favoring UP in trained participants (ES 0.61, 95% CI [0.00, 1.22]; Z = 1.97 (P = 0.05)), whereas changes in 1RM did not differ between LP and UP in untrained participants (ES 0.06, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.31]; Z = 0.43 (P = 0.67)). The meta-analyses showed that muscle hypertrophy did not differ between LP and UP (ES 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.29]; Z = 0.36 (P = 0.72)). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that when volume is equated between conditions, periodized resistance training has a greater effect on 1RM strength compared to NP resistance training. Also, UP resulted in greater increases in 1RM compared to LP. However, subgroup analyses revealed that this was only the case for trained and not previously untrained individuals, indicating that trained individuals benefit from daily or weekly undulations in volume and intensity, when the aim is maximal strength. Periodization of volume and intensity does not seem to affect muscle hypertrophy in volume-equated pre-post designs. Based on this, we propose that the effects of periodization on maximal strength may instead be related to the neurophysiological adaptations accompanying resistance training.