Acute Effects of the New Method Sarcoplasma Stimulating Training Versus Traditional Resistance Training on Total Training Volume, Lactate and Muscle Thickness

Fernando Noronha De Almeida,Alex Harley Crisp,Thiago Barbosa Trindade,Raphael Machado Da Conceição,Nuno Manuel Frade De Sousa,Jonato Prestes,Luan Oenning,Charles Ricardo Lopes,Jeffrey M Willardson

doi:10.3389/fphys.2019.00579

Abstract

Background: Trained subjects have difficulty in achieving continued results following years of training, and the manipulation of training variables through advanced resistance training (RT) methods is widely recommended to break through plateaus.Objective: The purpose of the present study was to compare the acute effects of traditional RT (TRT) versus two types of sarcoplasma stimulating training (SST) methods on total training volume (TTV), lactate, and muscle thickness (MT).Methods: Twelve trained males (20.75 ± 2.3 years; 1.76 ± 0.14 meters; body mass = 79.41 ± 4.6 kg; RT experience = 4.1 ± 1.8 years) completed three RT protocols in a randomly sequenced order: TRT, SST contraction type (SST-CT), or SST rest interval variable (SST-RIV) with 7 days between trials in arm curl (elbow flexors) and triceps pulley extension (elbow extensors) performed on the same day.Results: The SST groups displayed greater acute biceps and triceps brachii (TB) MT versus the TRT session, with no difference in lactate levels between them. The SST-CT resulted in greater biceps and TB MT versus the SST-RIV session. The TTV was greater for the TRT session versus the SST sessions, except in the case of the elbow flexors (no difference was observed between TRT and SST-CT), and higher for the SST-CT versus the SST-RIV.Conclusion: Trained subjects may benefit from using the SST method as this method may offer a superior MT stimulus and reduced training time, even with a lower TTV.

Highlights

Resistance training (RT) is a popular exercise modality, and has been shown to increase strength (Prestes et al, 2015), muscle power (Hanson et al, 2009), functional capacity, muscle endurance, cardiovascular fitness, quality of life, and muscle hypertrophy (American College of Sports Medicine, 2009)
The total training volume (TTV) was greater for the traditional RT (TRT) session versus the sarcoplasma stimulating training (SST) sessions, except in the case of the elbow flexors, and higher for the SST contraction type (SST-CT) versus the SST rest interval variable (SST-RIV)
Trained subjects may benefit from using the SST method as this method may offer a superior muscle thickness (MT) stimulus and reduced training time, even with a lower TTV

Summary

Introduction

Resistance training (RT) is a popular exercise modality, and has been shown to increase strength (Prestes et al, 2015), muscle power (Hanson et al, 2009), functional capacity, muscle endurance, cardiovascular fitness, quality of life, and muscle hypertrophy (American College of Sports Medicine, 2009). Some RT methods are designed to increase the time under tension and total training volume (TTV), which are important variables to be considered in training sessions designed to generate hypertrophy gains and metabolic stress (Schoenfeld et al, 2017). Muscle hypertrophy depends on shifting the muscle protein balance to favor synthesis over degradation (Schoenfeld, 2013) In this sense, training methods are used to increase metabolic stress (local and circulating indicators, such as lactate) and time under tension through the manipulation of training volume, intensity, rest intervals between sets and exercises, muscle contraction type, and velocity (Schoenfeld et al, 2017). Trained subjects have difficulty in achieving continued results following years of training, and the manipulation of training variables through advanced resistance training (RT) methods is widely recommended to break through plateaus

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion