4.4 Article

Acute low-load resistance exercise with and without blood flow restriction increased protein signalling and number of satellite cells in human skeletal muscle

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 113, 期 12, 页码 2953-2965

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-013-2733-5

关键词

Blood flow restricted exercise; Ischaemic resistance exercise; Anabolic signalling; P70S6 kinase

资金

  1. Swedish National Centre for Research in Sports [CIF 125/05]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To investigate hypertrophic signalling after a single bout of low-load resistance exercise with and without blood flow restriction (BFR). Seven subjects performed unilateral knee extensions at 30 % of their one repetition maximum. The subjects performed five sets to failure with BFR on one leg, and then repeated the same amount of work with the other leg without BFR. Biopsies were obtained from m. vastus lateralis before and 1, 24 and 48 h after exercise. At 1-h post-exercise, phosphorylation of p70S6K(Thr389) and p38MAPK(Thr180/Tyr182) was elevated in the BFR leg, but not in the free-flow leg. Phospho-p70S6K(Thr389) was elevated three- to fourfold in both legs at 24-h post-exercise, but back to baseline at 48 h. The number of visible satellite cells (SCs) per muscle fibre was increased for all post-exercise time points and in both legs (33-53 %). The proportion of SCs with cytoplasmic extensions was elevated at 1-h post in the BFR leg and the number of SCs positive for myogenin and/or MyoD was increased at 1- and 24-h post-exercise for both legs combined. Acute low-load resistance exercise with BFR resulted in early (1 h) and late (24 h) enhancement of phospho-p70S6K(Thr389), an early response of p38MAPK, and an increased number of SCs per muscle fibre. Enhanced phospho-p70S6K(Thr389) at 24-h post-exercise and increases in SC numbers were seen also in the free-flow leg. Implications of these findings for the hypertrophic effects of fatiguing low-load resistance exercise with and without BFR are discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据