Individual Response to Different Volumes of Resistance Training

NCT02179307 | Completed DMC

• 1 other identifier: Trainsome 2014#002
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 42
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

The literature is not clear as to which training volume to employ during initial phases of resistance training programs to ensure optimal muscular adaptations. The purpose of this study is therefore to compare effects of strength training with low versus moderate volume on muscular function and hypertrophy in previously untrained, healthy individuals. Furthermore, the investigators will relate individual variation in responses to proxy markers of individual training state, such as baseline muscular function and muscle fiber type. The study will include 25 women and 25 men and will consist of a 12-week resistance training protocol. Each study participant will act as their own control, performing both the low- (1-set) and the moderate-volume (3-sets) protocol, allocated to either the dominant or non-dominant leg, in a stratified and randomized fashion. Primary outcome measures are thigh muscle cross section area and unilateral knee extension strength. Additionally, muscle fiber type composition will be evaluated as well as additional parameters of muscular function. The primary hypothesis is that low-volume protocols will be beneficial for individuals with glycolytic muscle phenotypes, whereas the opposite will be true for individuals with more aerobic phenotypes.

Conditions

Healthy

Keywords

muscle hypertrophy; strength; resistance training; exercise; physical fitness; health; physical conditioning

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (2)

• Thigh muscle cross-sectional area

  Changes in muscle cross sectional area of each thigh from baseline to post intervention, assessed by MRI.

  Week 0 (baseline) and 12 (post training intervention)

• Unilateral knee-extension isometric strength

  Time course changes in maximum knee extensor, isometric strength evaluated at 120° knee angle (180° fully extended).

  Week 0 (baseline), 2, 5, 9 (during intervention) and 12 (after training intervention)

Secondary Outcomes (6)

• Muscle strength

  Week 0 (baseline), 2, 5, 9 (during intervention) and 12 (after training intervention)

• Knee extensors and flexors force-velocity relationship

  Week 0 (baseline), 2, 5, 9 (during intervention) and 12 (after training intervention)

• Blood hormonal profiles

  Week 0 (baseline), 2 and 12 (post training intervention)

• Muscle fiber cross-sectional area

  Week 0 (baseline), 2 and 12 (post training intervention)

• Protein expression

  Week 0 (baseline), 2 and 12 (post training intervention)

Other Outcomes (3)

• Body composition changes

  Week 0 (baseline) and 12 (post training intervention)

• Habitual physical activity

  Week 0

• Daily nutrient intake

  Week 6

Study Arms (1)

Arm label 1-Set, 3-Set

EXPERIMENTAL

12-week progressive strength training protocol of different volumes

Behavioral: 12-week progressive strength training protocol

Interventions

12-week progressive strength training protocol BEHAVIORAL

Every study participant will complete 12 weeks of progressive strength training with one leg performing 1-set per exercise per session and the contralateral leg performing 3-sets per exercise per session. Allocation of dominant/non-dominant leg to either 1- or 3-set protocol will be done in a stratified, randomized fashion (stratified with regard to sex and baseline strength).

Arm label 1-Set, 3-Set

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 18 Years - 40 Years
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64)

You may qualify if:

• Healthy
• Non-smoking
• Able to tolerate resistance exercise training

You may not qualify if:

• Presence or history of cardiovascular, metabolic, endocrine or neuromuscular disease
• Diagnosed mental health disorder
• Intolerance to local anesthetic
• No experience with exercise training
• Performing regular resistance training (more than 1 session per week during last 12 months)
• Impaired strength/ neuromuscular function due to previous injury
• Recurrent pain in lower back, knee or shoulders
• Taking prescribed medication that may affect outcome of training intervention

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences: lead
• Sykehuset Innlandet HF: collaborator
• Revmatismesykehuset AS: collaborator

Study Sites (1)

Lillehammer University College

Lillehammer, Norway

Location

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Motor Activity

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Behavior

Study Officials

• Stian Ellefsen, PhD

  Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: NA
• Masking: NONE
• Purpose: BASIC SCIENCE
• Intervention Model: SINGLE GROUP
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: SPONSOR

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: June 27, 2014
• First Posted: July 1, 2014
• Study Start: August 1, 2014
• Primary Completion: April 1, 2015
• Study Completion: April 1, 2015
• Last Updated: November 6, 2015

Record last verified: 2015-11

Locations

NO (1)