Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
STUDY DESIGN: Pretest-posttest, single factor design. OBJECTIVES: To compare several indices that might be used to depict muscle size. BACKGROUND: The particular strategy used during heavy-resistance training may determine the magnitude of hypertrophic adaptations. At the same time, assorted measures supposedly reflecting muscle size may provide different results. METHODS AND MEASURES: Four groups of men (n = 38, mean age = 21.1 years, SD = 2.1) were exposed to conditions designed to elicit differential hypertrophic adaptations following 21 sessions of squat training. Three of the groups performed 4 sets of multiple repetitions maximum (RM): group I, 3-5 RM; group II, 13-15 RM; and group III, 23-25 RM. A control (C) group did no formal physical training. Tests used to represent muscle size included body weight, thigh girth, net thigh girth, and quadriceps femoris and hamstring thicknesses via B-mode ultrasound. RESULTS: Changes in the groups subsequent to training were similar for body weight and hamstring thickness. Results differed for the remaining 3 dependent variables (mean +/- SD): thigh girth was greater in groups II (1.42 +/- 1.00) and III (1.35 +/- 1.16) than in group C (0.24 +/- 0.69); net thigh girth was greater in groups II (1.33 +/- 0.77) and III (1.40 +/- 1.03) than in group C (0.10 +/- 0.84); and quadriceps femoris thickness was greater in all 3 training groups (I, 0.61 +/- 0.54; II, 0.43 +/- 0.30; III, 0.55 +/- 0.39) than in group C (0.05 +/- 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Observed muscle mass change following heavy-resistance training is dependent upon both the training intervention and tool used for measurement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Weiss et al. (2000) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: