Background: Consumption of moderate amounts of animal-derived protein has been shown to differently influence skeletal muscle hypertrophy during resistance training when compared with nitrogenous and isoenergetic amounts of plant-based protein administered in small to moderate doses. Therefore, the purpose of the study was to determine if the post-exercise consumption of rice protein isolate could increase recovery and elicit adequate changes in body composition compared to equally dosed whey protein isolate if given in large, isocaloric doses. Methods 24 college-aged, resistance trained males were recruited for this study. Subjects were randomly and equally divided into two groups, either consuming 48 g of rice or whey protein isolate (isocaloric and isonitrogenous) on training days. Subjects trained 3 days per week for 8 weeks as a part of a daily undulating periodized resistance-training program. The rice and whey protein supplements were consumed immediately following exercise. Ratings of perceived recovery, soreness, and readiness to train were recorded prior to and following the first training session. Ultrasonography determined muscle thickness, dual emission x-ray absorptiometry determined body composition, and bench press and leg press for upper and lower body strength were recorded during weeks 0, 4, and 8. An ANOVA model was used to measure group, time, and group by time interactions. If any main effects were observed, a Tukey post-hoc was employed to locate where differences occurred. Results No detectable differences were present in psychometric scores of perceived recovery, soreness, or readiness to train (p > 0.05). Significant time effects were observed in which lean body mass, muscle mass, strength and power all increased and fat mass decreased; however, no condition by time interactions were observed (p > 0.05). Conclusion Both whey and rice protein isolate administration post resistance exercise improved indices of body composition and exercise performance; however, there were no differences between the two groups.

Aube, D, Wadhi, T, Rauch, J, Anand, A, Barakat, C, Pearson, J, Bradshaw, J, Zazzo, S, Ugrinowitsch, C, and De Souza, EO. Progressive resistance training volume: effects on muscle thickness, mass, and strength adaptations in resistance-trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res 36(3): 600–607, 2022—This study investigated the effects of 12-SET, 18-SET, and 24-SET lower-body weekly sets on muscle strength and mass accretion. Thirty-five resistance-trained individuals (one repetition maximum [1RM] squat: body mass ratio [1RM: BM] = 2.09) were randomly divided into 12-SET: n = 13, 18-SET: n = 12, and 24-SET: n = 10. Subjects underwent an 8-week resistance-training (RT) program consisting of 2 weekly sessions. Muscle strength (1RM), repetitions to failure (RTF) at 70% of 1RM, anterior thigh muscle thickness (MT), at the medial MT (MMT) and distal MT (DMT) points, as well as the sum of both sites (ΣMT), along with region of interest for fat-free mass (ROI-FFM) were measured at baseline and post-testing. For the 1RM, there was a main time effect (p ≤ 0.0001). However, there was a strong trend toward significance (p = 0.052) for group-by-time interaction, suggesting that 18-SET increased 1RM back squat to a greater extent compared with 24-SET (24-SET: 9.5 kg, 5.4%; 18-SET: 25.5 kg, 16.2%; 12-SET: 18.3 kg, 11.3%). For RTF, only a main time-effect (p ≤ 0.0003) was observed (24-SET: 5.7 reps, 33.1%; 18-SET: 2.4 reps, 14.5%; 12-SET: 5.0 reps, 34.8%). For the MMT, DMT, ΣMT, and ROI-FFM, there was only main time-effect (p ≤ 0.0001) (MMT: 24-SET: 0.15 cm, 2.7%; 18-SET: 0.32 cm, 5.7%; 12-SET: 0.38 cm, 6.4%—DMT: 24-SET: 0.39 cm, 13.1%; 18-SET: 0.28 cm, 8.9%; 12-SET: 0.34 cm, 9.7%—ΣMT: 24-SET: 0.54 cm, 6.1%; 18-SET: 0.60 cm, 6.7%; 12-SET: 0.72 cm, 7.7%, and ROI-FFM: 24-SET: 0.70 kg, 2.6%; 18-SET: 1.09 kg, 4.2%; 12-SET: 1.20 kg, 4.6%, respectively). Although all of the groups increased maximum strength, our results suggest that the middle dose range may optimize the gains in back squat 1RM. Our findings also support that differences in weekly set number did not impact in MT and ROI-FFM adaptations in subjects who can squat more than twice their body mass.

Despite the lack of standardized terminology, building muscle and losing fat concomitantly has been referred to as body recomposition by practitioners. Although many suggest that this only occurs in untrained/novice and overweight/obese populations, there is a substantial amount of literature demonstrating this body recomposition phenomenon in resistance-trained individuals. Moreover, 2 key factors influencing these adaptations are progressive resistance training coupled with evidence-based nutritional strategies. This review examines some of the current literature demonstrating body recomposition in various trained populations, the aforementioned key factors, nontraining/nutrition variables (i.e., sleep, hormones), and potential limitations due to body composition assessments. In addition, this review points out the areas where more research is warranted.

The purpose of this study was to assess the concurrent validity and test-retest reliability of a linear position transducer (LPT) for the squat jump (SJ) and counter-movement jump (CMJ) height. Twenty-eight subjects (25.18 ± 7.1 years) performed three SJs followed by three CMJs using a force plate concurrently with the LPT to test validity. Subjects returned on a separate day, at least 48 h apart, to measure test-retest reliability. A t-test showed a significant difference between the two devices for both SJ (p < 0.001) and CMJ (p < 0.001) while Bland–Altman analysis for validity revealed that the LPT overestimated jump height for both SJ (mean difference (MD) = 8.01 ± 2.93 cm) and CMJ (MD = 8.68 ± 2.99 cm). With regards to reliability of the LPT, mean intraclass correlation (ICC) for both SJ (ICC = 0.84) and CMJ (ICC = 0.95) were high, and Bland–Altman analysis showed mean differences lower than minimal detectable change (MDC) between the days for both SJ (MD = 1.89 ± 4.16 cm vs. MDC = 2.72 cm) and CMJ (MD = 0.47 ± 3.23 cm vs. MDC = 2.11 cm). Additionally, there was a low coefficient of variation (CV) between days for both SJ (CV = 3.25%) and CMJ (CV = 0.74%). Therefore, while the LPT overestimates jump height, it is a reliable tool for tracking changes in jump height to measure performance improvement and monitor fatigue.

Currently, there is a lack of studies examining the effects of adenosine-5′-triphosphate (ATP) supplementation utilizing a long-term, periodized resistance-training program (RT) in resistance-trained populations. Therefore, we investigated the effects of 12 weeks of 400 mg per day of oral ATP on muscular adaptations in trained individuals. We also sought to determine the effects of ATP on muscle protein breakdown, cortisol, and performance during an overreaching cycle.

This study investigated the chronic effects of concurrent training (CT) on morphological and molecular adaptations. 37 men (age=23.7±5.5 year) were divided into 4 groups: interval (IT), strength (ST) and concurrent (CT) training and a control group (C) and underwent 8 weeks of training. Maximum strength (1RM) and muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) were evaluated before and after training. Muscle samples were obtained before the training program and 48 h after the last training session. VO_2max improved in 5±0.95% and 15±1.3% (pre- to post-test) in groups CT and IT, respectively, when compared to C. Time to exhaustion (TE) improved from pre- to post-test when compared to C (CT=6.1±0.58%; IT=8.3±0.88%; ST=3.2±0.66%). 1RM increased from pre-to post-test only in ST and CT groups (ST=18.5±3.16%; CT=17.6±3.01%). Similarly, ST and CT groups increased quadriceps CSA from pre-to post-test (6.2±1.4%; 7.8±1.66%). The p70S6K1 total protein content increased after CT. The ST group showed increased Akt phosphorylation at Ser473 (45.0±3.3%) whereas AMPK phosphorylation at Thr172 increased only in IT group, (100±17.6%). In summary, our data suggest that despite the differences in molecular adaptations between training regimens, CT did not blunt muscle strength and hypertrophy increments when compared with ST.