Auto-Regulated Exercise Selection Training Regimen Produces Small Increases in Lean Body Mass and Maximal Strength Adaptations in Strength-trained Individuals.

Rauch, JT, Ugrinowitsch, C, Barakat, CI, Alvarez, MR, Brummert, DL, Aube, DW, Barsuhn, AS, Hayes, D, Tricoli, V, and De Souza, EO. Auto-regulated exercise selection training regimen produces small increases in lean body mass and maximal strength adaptations in highly trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res 34(4): 1133-1140, 2020-The purpose of this investigation was to compare the effects of auto-regulatory exercise selection (AES) vs. fixed exercise selection (FES) on muscular adaptations in strength-trained individuals. Seventeen men (mean ± SD; age = 24 ± 5.45 years; height = 180.3 ± 7.54 cm, lean body mass [LBM] = 66.44 ± 6.59 kg; squat and bench press 1 repetition maximum (1RM): body mass ratio 1.87, 1.38, respectively) were randomly assigned into either AES or FES. Both groups trained 3 times a week for 9 weeks. Auto-regulatory exercise selection self-selected the exercises for each session, whereas FES was required to perform exercises in a fixed order. Lean body mass was assessed via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and maximum strength via 1RM testing, pre-, and post-training intervention. Total volume load was significantly higher for AES than for FES (AES: 573,288 ± 67,505 kg; FES: 464,600 ± 95,595 kg, p = 0.0240). For LBM, there was a significant main time effect (p = 0.009). However, confidence interval analysis (95% CIdiff) suggested that only AES significantly increased LBM (AES: 2.47%, effect size [ES]: 0.35, 95% CIdiff [0.030-3.197 kg]; FES: 1.37%, ES: 0.21, 95% CIdiff [-0.500 to 2.475 kg]). There was a significant main time effect for maximum strength (p ≤ 0.0001). However, 95% CIdiff suggested that only AES significantly improved bench press 1RM (AES: 6.48%, ES: 0.50, 95% CIdiff [0.312-11.42 kg]; FES: 5.14%, ES: 0.43, 95% CIdiff [-0.311 to 11.42 kg]). However for back squat 1RM, similar responses were observed between groups (AES: 9.55%, ES: 0.76, 95% CIdiff [0.04-28.37 kg]; FES: 11.54%, ES: 0.80, 95% CIdiff [1.8-28.5 kg]). Our findings suggest that AES may provide a small advantage in LBM and upper body maximal strength in strength-trained individuals.

Validity and Reliability of the GymAware Linear Position Transducer for Squat Jump and Counter-Movement Jump Height.

The purpose of this study was to assess the concurrent validity and test-retest reliability of a linear position transducer (LPT) for the squat jump (SJ) and counter-movement jump (CMJ) height. Twenty-eight subjects (25.18 ± 7.1 years) performed three SJs followed by three CMJs using a force plate concurrently with the LPT to test validity. Subjects returned on a separate day, at least 48 h apart, to measure test-retest reliability. A t-test showed a significant difference between the two devices for both SJ (p < 0.001) and CMJ (p < 0.001) while Bland⁻Altman analysis for validity revealed that the LPT overestimated jump height for both SJ (mean difference (MD) = 8.01 ± 2.93 cm) and CMJ (MD = 8.68 ± 2.99 cm). With regards to reliability of the LPT, mean intraclass correlation (ICC) for both SJ (ICC = 0.84) and CMJ (ICC = 0.95) were high, and Bland⁻Altman analysis showed mean differences lower than minimal detectable change (MDC) between the days for both SJ (MD = 1.89 ± 4.16 cm vs. MDC = 2.72 cm) and CMJ (MD = 0.47 ± 3.23 cm vs. MDC = 2.11 cm). Additionally, there was a low coefficient of variation (CV) between days for both SJ (CV = 3.25%) and CMJ (CV = 0.74%). Therefore, while the LPT overestimates jump height, it is a reliable tool for tracking changes in jump height to measure performance improvement and monitor fatigue.

Similar Strength and Power Adaptations between Two Different Velocity-Based Training Regimens in Collegiate Female Volleyball Players.

This study investigated the effects of two different velocity-based training (VBT) regimens on muscular adaptations. Fifteen female college volleyball players were randomly assigned into either progressive velocity-based training (PVBT) or optimum training load (OTL). Both groups trained three times a week for seven weeks. PVBT performed a 4-week strength block (e.g., 0.55⁻0.70 m·s-1) followed by a 3-week power block (e.g., 0.85⁻1.0 m·s-1), whereas OTL performed training at ~0.85⁻0.9 m·s-1. 1RM and peak power output (PP) assessments on the back squat (BS), bench press (BP) and deadlift (DL) exercises were assessed pre and post training. There was a main time effect (p ≤ 0.05) for BS and BP 1RM, (PVBT: 19.6%, ES: 1.72; OTL: 18.3%, ES: 1.57) and (PVBT: 8.5%, ES: 0.58; OTL: 10.2%, ES: 0.72), respectively. OTL increased DL 1RM to a greater extent than PVBT (p ≤ 0.05), (OTL: 22.9%, ES: 1.49; PVBT: 10.9%, ES: 0.88). Lastly, there was a main time effect (p ≤ 0.05) for BS, BP and DL PP, (PVBT: 18.3%, ES: 0.86; OTL: 19.8%, ES: 0.79); (PVBT: 14.5%, ES: 0.81; OTL: 27.9%, ES: 1.68); (PVBT: 15.7%, ES: 1.32; OTL: 20.1%, ES: 1.77) respectively. Our data suggest that both VBT regimens are effective for improving muscular performance in college volleyball players during the offseason period.

Effects of Arachidonic Acid Supplementation on Acute Anabolic Signaling and Chronic Functional Performance and Body Composition Adaptations.

BACKGROUND: The primary purpose of this investigation was to examine the effects of arachidonic acid (ARA) supplementation on functional performance and body composition in trained males. In addition, we performed a secondary study looking at molecular responses of ARA supplementation following an acute exercise bout in rodents. METHODS: Thirty strength-trained males (age: 20.4 ± 2.1 yrs) were randomly divided into two groups: ARA or placebo (i.e. CTL). Then, both groups underwent an 8-week, 3-day per week, non-periodized training protocol. Quadriceps muscle thickness, whole-body composition scan (DEXA), muscle strength, and power were assessed at baseline and post-test. In the rodent model, male Wistar rats (~250 g, ~8 weeks old) were pre-fed with either ARA or water (CTL) for 8 days and were fed the final dose of ARA prior to being acutely strength trained via electrical stimulation on unilateral plantar flexions. A mixed muscle sample was removed from the exercised and non-exercised leg 3 hours post-exercise. RESULTS: Lean body mass (2.9%, p<0.0005), upper-body strength (8.7%, p<0.0001), and peak power (12.7%, p<0.0001) increased only in the ARA group. For the animal trial, GSK-ß (Ser9) phosphorylation (p<0.001) independent of exercise and AMPK phosphorylation after exercise (p-AMPK less in ARA, p = 0.041) were different in ARA-fed versus CTL rats. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that ARA supplementation can positively augment strength-training induced adaptations in resistance-trained males. However, chronic studies at the molecular level are required to further elucidate how ARA combined with strength training affect muscle adaptation.

The Effects of a Multi-Ingredient Performance Supplement on Hormonal Profiles and Body Composition in Male College Athletes.

Periods of intense training can elicit an acute decline in performance and body composition associated with weakened hormone profiles. This study investigated the effects of a multi-ingredient performance supplement (MIPS) on body composition and hormone levels in college athletes following a six-week training protocol. Twenty male college athletes were equally assigned to MIPS and placebo (PLA) groups for supplementation (three pills, twice daily) in conjunction with resistance training and specialized sports training (e.g., nine total sessions/week) for six weeks. Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry determined body composition at weeks 0 and 6. Serum samples collected at weeks 0 and 6 determined free testosterone (FT), total testosterone (TT), IGF-1 and total estrogen (TE) levels. PLA experienced a significant decline in lean body mass (LBM) (-1.5 kg; p < 0.05) whereas the MIPS sustained LBM. The MIPS increased TT 21.9% (541.5 ± 48.7 to 639.1 ± 31.7) and increased FT 15.2% (13.28 ± 1.1 to 15.45 ± 1.3 ng/dL) (p < 0.05). Conversely, PLA decreased TT 7.9% (554.5 ± 43.3 to 497.2 ± 39.1 ng/dL), decreased FT 17.4% (13.41 ± 1.8 to 11.23 ± 2.55 ng/dL), and decreased FT:E 12.06% (p < 0.05). These findings suggest the MIPS can prevent decrements in LBM and anabolic hormone profiles during intense training periods.