Strength and muscle mass development after a resistance‑training period at terrestrial and normobaric intermittent hypoxia
Metadatos
Mostrar el registro completo del ítemAutor
Benavente Bardera, Cristina; Padial Puche, Paulino; Scott, B. R.; Almeida1¡, F.; Olcina, G.; Pérez‑Regalado, S.; Feriche Fernández-Castanys, María BelénEditorial
Springer
Materia
Hypobaric hypoxia Biomarkers Performance
Fecha
2024-06-25Referencia bibliográfica
Benavente, C. et. al. Pflugers Arch - Eur J Physiol 476, 1221–1233 (2024). [https://doi.org/10.1007/s00424-024-02978-1]
Patrocinador
Universidad de Granada/ CBUA; Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities under grant [PGC2018-097388-B-I00 -MINECO/FEDER]; Andalusian FEDER Operational Program [B-CTS-374-UGR20 and C-SEJ-015-UGR23]; National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1196462)Resumen
This study investigated the effect of a resistance training (
RT) period at terrestrial (HH) and normobaric hypoxia (NH) on
both muscle hypertrophy and maximal strength development with respect to the same training in normoxia (N). Thirtythree
strength-trained males were assigned to N (
FiO2 = 20.9%), HH (2,320 m asl) or NH (
FiO2 = 15.9%). The participants
completed an 8-week RT
program (3 sessions/week) of a full body routine. Muscle thickness of the lower limb and 1RM in
back squat were assessed before and after the training program. Blood markers of stress, inflammation (IL-6) and muscle
growth (% active mTOR, myostatin and miRNA-206) were measured before and after the first and last session of the program.
Findings revealed all groups improved 1RM, though this was most enhanced by RT
in NH (p = 0.026). According to
the moderate to large excess of the exercise-induced stress response (lactate and Ca2+)
in HH and N, results only displayed
increases in muscle thickness in these two conditions over NH (ES > 1.22). Compared with the rest of the environmental
conditions, small to large increments in % active mTOR were only found in HH, and IL-6, myostatin and miR-206 in NH
throughout the training period. In conclusion, the results do not support the expected additional benefit of RT
under hypoxia
compared to N on muscle growth, although it seems to favour gains in strength. The greater muscle growth achieved in HH
over NH confirms the impact of the type of hypoxia on the outcomes.