Skeletal muscle mitochondrial responses to a single bout and six weeks of high load versus high volume resistance training in previously trained men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The effects of higher-load (HL) versus higher-volume (HV) resistance training (RT) on various molecular outcomes are similar. However, mitochondrial responses remain understudied. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to interrogate mitochondrial mRNA and protein responses to acute and chronic HL versus HV RT. Vastus lateralis biopsies from resistance trained males in two prior studies were assessed. In STUDY 1, 11 college-aged men completed an acute bout of either HL or HV RT exercises to failure. Biopsies were collected at PRE, 3 hours post-, and 6 hours post-exercise. In STUDY 2, 15 college-aged men participated in six weeks of supervised unilateral RT where each leg was assigned to either HL or HV RT. Biopsies were collected from both legs prior to and 72 hours following last training bout of the intervention. Biopsies from both studies were used to assess mitochondrial mRNAs, and STUDY 2 biopsies were assayed for mitochondrial proteins and CS activity. Results from both studies revealed several significant main effects of time but no significant interactions. Additionally, CS activity, a surrogate of mitochondrial content, decreased following chronic RT (p=0.016) but no interaction was observed between the HV and HL leg over time (p=0.882). In conclusion, while RT resulted in both acute mitochondrial mRNA as well as chronic CS activity and mitochondrial protein responses, there were no differences in the HL versus HV paradigms on these outcomes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".