Effects of Resistance Training on Elbow Flexors of Highly Competitive Bodybuilders
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Effects of resistance training on elbow flexors of highly competitive bodybuilders STEPHEN E. ALWAY, WALTER H. GRUMBT, JAMES STRAY-GUNDERSEN, AND WILLIAM J. GONYEA Departments of Cell Biology and Neuroscience, and Orthopedic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern/St. Paul Human Performance Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, Texas 75235 ALWAY, STEPHENE., WALTER H. GRUMBT,JAMESSTFUY- Empirical examination of bodybuilders, however, sug- GUNDERSEN,AND WILLIAM J. GONYEA. Effects of resistance gests that women may be capable of substantial increases training on elbow flexors of highly competitive bodybuilders. J. in muscle mass. This idea is supported from our previous Appl. Physiol. 72(4): 1512-1521, 1992.-The influence of work (7,8) in which both average type I and type II fiber gender on muscular adaptation of the elbow flexors to 24 wk of areas, as well as total fiber number, were greater in resis- heavy resistancetraining was studied in five male bodybuilders tance-trained women than in values reported in the liter- (MB) and five female bodybuilders (FB) who were highly com- petitive. Muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), fiber area, and ature for untrained women (22). In addition, recent lon- fiber number were determined from the bicepsbrachii, and vol- gitudinal data have demonstrated increases in muscle untary elbow flexor torque was obtained at velocities of contrac- mass and fiber area in the quadriceps muscles of women tion between 0 and 3OO”/s. Biceps and flexor CSA was 75.8 and after resistance training (25). Thus it now appears ap- 81% greater, respectively, in MB than in FB, but muscle CSA propriate to conclude that skeletal muscle hypertrophy was not significantly altered by the training program in either in women is possible. group. Becauseestimated fiber number and the volume density It is not clear whether type I and type II fibers in men of nonmuscle tissue were similar in MB and FB, most of the and women respond in identical manners to a similar gender difference in muscle CSA appeared to be due to greater relative load. We have previously determined that the absolute mean fiber areas in MB (10.51 and 10.68 X IO3 pm2 type II-to-type I area ratio in the biceps brachii of women pre- and posttraining, respectively) than in FB (5.33 and 5.96 X lo3 pm2pre- and posttraining, respectively). In neither MB nor bodybuilders was 1.1, and this was significantly less than FB did fiber type achieve further hypertrophy during the 24-wk the ratio of 1.5 that was found in men (7). This suggested training program. These data suggest that the extent of any that female bodybuilders (FB) were unable to achieve a change in musclemass or muscle fiber characteristics is mini- similar degree of preferential hypertrophy in type ‘II mal after a bodybuilder of either gender has attained a high fibers, relative to males. This apparent sexual dimor- degreeof muscle massand a highly competitive status. phism was despite similar training experience and simi- lar relative resistance loads in men and women. How- musclecross-sectional area; type II fibers; fiber cross-sectional ever, because these were cross-sectional data, we could area; fiber number; gender not be certain that women bodybuilders would not dem- onstrate selective type II hypertrophy if their training programs were of similar intensity to those of men. This SEVERAL INVESTIGATIONS have characterized adapta- was considered likely because Staron and co-workers tions of skeletal muscle to heavy resistance training in (26) found that although all fiber types hypertrophied in men (4-6, 19, 22, 27;28), but relatively few studies have the vastus lateralis of women after 20 wk of resistance examined similar responses in women. The studies that training, type II fibers were preferentially increased in have examined the effects of resistance training in their subjects. In a subsequent paper, Staron et al. (25) women are largely limited by methodological weak- observed that 6 wk of resistance training induced prefer- nesses, such as insufficient training duration and inten- ential hypertrophy of type II fibers after a 30- to 32-wk sity. Furthermore, most of such investigations have used detraining period. indirect methods to predict changes in muscle mass (i.e., The purpose of the present study was to determine the percent body fat, limb girth), but these measures do not effects of resistance training on characteristics of type I provide information about changes that might occur at and type II muscle fibers and muscle cross-sectional area the cellular level. Despite these shortcomings, these stud- (CSA). Specifically, our objective was to determine ies have been interpreted by many to indicate that whether type II fibers would respond similarly in men women are capable of significant strength gains with and women to a training program that comprised identi- minimal or no increase in muscle mass (11,30). Presum- cal exercises, sets, repetitions, and relative loads. Al- ably, increases in muscle strength in women would occur though Hakkinen et al. (14,X) have shown that muscle by improvements in neural rather than peripheral mecha- size and strength did not change over a 2-yr period in a nisms (20, 21, 30). group of highly competitive weight lifters, it is not known 1512 0161-7567/92 $2.00 Copyright 0 1992 the American Physiological Society RESISTANCE TRAINING AND MUSCLE 1513 whether muscle mass and strength in highly competitive at high levels of competition in most sports, all of the bodybuilders would show a similar resistance to improve- bodybuilders in this study were interviewed regarding ment. Therefore the second purpose of this study was to their steroid usage. Three of the MB and two of the FB determine whether highly competitive male bodybuilders admitted to current steroid use. The remaining athletes (MB) and FB could further enhance muscle strength, (2 MB and 3 FB) had not taken anabolic steroids for a fiber size, and muscle CSA during a heavy resistance minimum of 4 yr preceding the current study. Blood sam- training period that lasted 24 wk. By training the arm ples were obtained from all athletes, and high-density flexors in highly competitive bodybuilders of both and low-density lipoprotein levels were determined (data genders who had already achieved substantial muscle not shown). Although not all steroids will lower the ratio hypertrophy and strength, we were able to largely elimi- of low- to high-density lipoprotein, our data were consis- nate low motivational factors that may potentially con- tent with the information of current steroid use provided foun .d the interpretation of training studies that have ex- to us by the athletes (i.e., steroid users had very low levels amined previously sedentary subjects. We selected body- of high-density lipoprotein). Because it was not our in- builders- because-their goal is largely to obtain a high tent to manipulate steroid usage but rather to assess the degree of muscle mass in all muscles but especially in the effects of training on the muscle characteristics of these arm flexors. Because bodybuilders train very differently athletes, we excluded subjects after their original inter- from power lifters or weight lifters, we have examined view if they indicated that they would alter their levels only bodybuilders. This eliminated the confounding and/or types of steroids during the course of the experi- problem of other studies that have combined power ment. High- and low-density lipoproteins were not signif- lifters, weight lifters, and/or bodybuilders in a single icantly altered in assessments at 12 or 24 wk of this subject group. study. Therefore we assume that compliance with steroid usage or nonusage was maintained by all subjects. METHODS All women athletes were premenopausal. All had men- strual cycles, although the two women who were using Subjects. Subjects consisted of five MB, five FB, two anabolic steroids reported irregular menstrual cycles. untrained male controls, and two untrained female con- Physical characteristics of the athletes were unaltered trols. Before participating, all subjects signed an in- over the course of the study (Table 1). formed consent form that was approved by the Human Review Board of University of Texas, Southwestern Med- Competitive bodybuilders, like other athletes, train differently during the “off-season” than during the “com- ical Center at Dallas. Data obtained before training have petitive season.” been reported on some of these subjects in a previous Typically, the off-season is a period study (7). All of these athletes were highly competitive when bodybuilders attempt to improve muscle mass and because they had won their weight or height class at ei- strength in all body parts and especially in those that ther National Physique Co mmittee- or American Ath- might have shown some asymmetry during the previous letic Union-sanctioned bodybuilding championships in competitions. Approximately 8-12 wk before a body- the states of Texas, Arkansas, or Louisiana. Three of the building competition, bodybuilders will reduce their calo- MB and two of the FB had placed second through fifth at ric intake and attempt to reduce subcutaneous body fat national-level bodybuilding championships held by the stores, while maintaining (but not adding to) the existing National Physique Committee or the American Athletic levels of muscle mass. Union. These were non-drug-tested events at the time of The bodybuilders in the current study were exam- data collection. One MB had won a Natural Physique ined 24 wk after their most recent competition (range of Competition national meet where drug testing against 6-16 wk). During the 24 wk of this study, none of the steroid use was enforced. bodybuilders competed in a bodybuilding competition, Dietary patterns for these athletes were assessed be- nor did they attempt to reduce caloric intake to reduce fore and after the study by a questionnaire that recorded body fat stores.