Does habitual dietary intake influence myofiber hypertrophy in response to resistance training? A cluster analysis - PubMed (original) (raw)

Does habitual dietary intake influence myofiber hypertrophy in response to resistance training? A cluster analysis

Anna E Thalacker-Mercer et al. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2009 Aug.

Abstract

Although resistance exercise training (RT) is a common intervention to stimulate muscle protein synthesis and increase skeletal muscle mass, the optimal daily protein and total energy intakes sufficient to support RT-mediated muscle growth are as yet unclear. Further, the efficacy of RT varies widely among adults of all ages and whether this is attributable to interindividual differences in nutrition is not known. To determine if self-selected daily intake of macronutrients and specific components of dietary protein and fat are predictive of the magnitude of RT-mediated muscle growth, detailed 4-day dietary records were analyzed on 60 subjects previously clustered (K-means cluster analysis) as non-, modest, and extreme responders (non, n = 16; mod, n = 29; xtr, n = 15), based on the magnitudes of change in vastus lateralis myofiber cross-sectional area following a 16-week, 3-day-per-week, high-intensity RT. Despite the marked contrast between 60% myofiber hypertrophy in xtr and zero growth in non, we found no differences among response clusters in daily intakes of energy (mean +/- SEM: non 102 +/- 8; mod 111 +/- 6; xtr 109 +/- 5 kJ.kg-1.day-1), protein (non 0.97 +/- 0.08; mod 1.07 +/- 0.07; xtr 1.05 +/- 0.06 g.kg-1.day-1), carbohydrate (non 3.02 +/- 0.24; mod 3.18 +/- 0.20; xtr 3.14 +/- 0.17 g.kg-1.day-1), and fat (non 0.95 +/- 0.09; mod 1.05 +/- 0.08; xtr 1.03 +/- 0.08 g.kg-1.day-1), which generally met or exceeded dietary recommendations. There were no cluster differences in intakes of branched chain amino acids known to stimulate muscle protein synthesis. Using the novel K-means clustering approach, we conclude from this preliminary study that protein and energy intakes were sufficient to facilitate modest and extreme muscle growth during RT and intrinsic or extrinsic factors other than nutrient ingestion apparently impaired the anabolic response in nonresponders.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Fiatarone MA, Marks EC, Ryan ND, Meredith CN, Lipsitz LA, Evans WJ. High-intensity strength training in nonagenarians. Effects on skeletal muscle. Jama. 1990;263:3029–3034. - PubMed
    1. Brown AB, McCartney N, Sale DG. Positive adaptations to weight-lifting training in the elderly. J Appl Physiol. 1990;69:1725–1733. - PubMed
    1. Frontera WR, Meredith CN, O’Reilly KP, Knuttgen HG, Evans WJ. Strength conditioning in older men: skeletal muscle hypertrophy and improved function. J Appl Physiol. 1988;64:1038–1044. - PubMed
    1. Kosek DJ, Kim JS, Petrella JK, Cross JM, Bamman MM. Efficacy of 3 days/wk resistance training on myofiber hypertrophy and myogenic mechanisms in young vs. older adults. J Appl Physiol. 2006;101:531–544. - PubMed
    1. Petrella JK, Kim JS, Cross JM, Kosek DJ, Bamman MM. Efficacy of myonuclear addition may explain differential myofiber growth among resistance-trained young and older men and women. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2006;291:E937–946. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources