Biology of Sport
eISSN: 2083-1862
ISSN: 0860-021X
Biology of Sport
Current Issue Manuscripts accepted About the journal Editorial board Abstracting and indexing Archive Ethical standards and procedures Contact Instructions for authors Journal's Reviewers Special Information
Editorial System
Submit your Manuscript
SCImago Journal & Country Rank
Search
Editorial Policies
Sarajevo Declaration on Integrity and Visibility of Scholarly Publications

Open access

without publication fees
4/2020
vol. 37
 
Share:
Send email
Share:
abstract:
Original paper

Effect of resistance training to muscle failure vs non-failure on strength, hypertrophy and muscle architecture in trained individuals

Natalia Santanielo
1
,
Sanmy R. Nóbrega
1
,
Maíra C. Scarpelli
1
,
Ieda F. Alvarez
1
,
Gabriele B. Otoboni
1
,
Lucas Pintanel
1
,
Cleiton A. Libardi
1

  1. MUSCULAB – Laboratory of Neuromuscular Adaptations to Resistance Training, Department of Physical Education, Federal University of São Carlos – UFSCar, São Carlos, SP, Brazil
Biol Sport. 2020;37(4):333–341.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2020.96317
Online publish date: 2020/07/10
View full text Get citation
 
PlumX metrics:
The aim of this study was to compare the effects of resistance training to muscle failure (RT-F) and non-failure (RT-NF) on muscle mass, strength and activation of trained individuals. We also compared the effects of these protocols on muscle architecture parameters. A within-subjects design was used in which 14 participants had one leg randomly assigned to RT-F and the other to RT-NF. Each leg was trained 2 days per week for 10 weeks. Vastus lateralis (VL) muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), pennation angle (PA), fascicle length (FL) and 1-repetition maximum (1-RM) were assessed at baseline (Pre) and after 20 sessions (Post). The electromyographic signal (EMG) was assessed after the training period. RT-F and RT-NF protocols showed significant and similar increases in CSA (RT-F: 13.5% and RT-NF: 18.1%; P < 0.0001), PA (RT-F: 13.7% and RT-NF: 14.4%; P < 0.0001) and FL (RT-F: 11.8% and RT-NF: 8.6%; P < 0.0001). All protocols showed significant and similar increases in leg press (RT-F: 22.3% and RT-NF: 26.7%; P < 0.0001) and leg extension (RT-F: 33.3%, P < 0.0001 and RT-NF: 33.7%; P < 0.0001) 1-RM loads. No significant differences in EMG amplitude were detected between protocols (P > 0.05). In conclusion, RT-F and RT-NF are similarly effective in promoting increases in muscle mass, PA, FL, strength and activation.
keywords:

Muscle fatigue, Muscle mass, Pennation angle, Fascicle length, Electromyography

  
Termedia
About us Contact
Copyright notice Privacy policy Advertising policy Contact us
Quick links
Journals Books eBooks Events
© 2024 Termedia Sp. z o.o.
Developed by Bentus.