Microvascular adaptations to resistance training are independent of load in resistance-trained young men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resistance training promotes microvasculature expansion; however, it remains unknown how different resistance training programs contribute to angiogenesis. Thus, we recruited experienced resistance-trained participants and determined the effect of 12 wk of either high-repetition/low-load or low-repetition/high-load resistance training performed to volitional fatigue on muscle microvasculature. Twenty men performed either a high-repetition [20-25 repetitions, 30-50% of 1-repetition maximum (1RM); n = 10] or a low-repetition (8-12 repetitions, 75-90% of 1RM; n = 10) resistance training program. Muscle biopsies were taken before and after resistance training, and immunohistochemistry was used to assess fiber type (I and II)-specific microvascular variables. High-repetition/low-load and low-repetition/high-load groups were not different in any variable before resistance training. Both protocols resulted in an increase in capillarization. Specifically, after resistance training, the capillary-to-fiber ratio, capillary contacts, and capillary-to-fiber perimeter exchange index were elevated, and sharing factor was reduced. These data demonstrate that resistance training performed to volitional failure, using either high repetition/low load or low repetition/high load, induced similar microvascular adaptations in recreationally resistance-trained young men.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".