Advertisement

European Journal of Applied Physiology

, Volume 117, Issue 6, pp 1275–1276 | Cite as

Muscle size and strength: debunking the “completely separate phenomena” suggestion

  • Thomas G. Balshaw
  • Garry J. Massey
  • Thomas M. Maden-Wilkinson
  • Jonathan P. Folland
Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor,

Buckner et al. (2017) query the conclusion of our recent article [“Changes in agonist neural drive, hypertrophy and pre-training strength all contribute to the individual strength gains after resistance training”, Balshaw et al. (2017)], which stated that “muscle hypertrophy in the current study…clearly did contribute to the explained variance in strength and further negates the suggestion that strength and hypertrophy are entirely separate phenomena  ​(Buckner et al. 2016)” and therefore refuted a hypothesis of theirs that the changes in muscle size and strength after resistance training (RT) are “separate and unrelated adaptations” (Buckner et al. 2016). Here, we emphasise that: (a) the aim of our study was to investigate whether there was a relationshipbetween putative predictor variables/adaptations after RT, rather than the nature of the relationship (e.g. causal/coincidental); (b) the existence of the relationship we found undermines the hypothesis of Buckner et...

Keywords

Resistance Training Elbow Flexor Muscle Size Strength Gain Strength Change 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. Balshaw TG, Massey GJ, Maden-Wilkinson TM et al (2017) Changes in agonist neural drive, hypertrophy and pre-training strength all contribute to the individual strength gains after resistance training. Eur J Appl Physiol 117:631–640CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Buckner SL, Dankel SJ, Mattocks KT et al (2016) The problem of muscle hypertrophy: revisited. Muscle Nerve 54:1012–1014CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Buckner SL, Dankel SJ, Mattocks KT et al (2017) Muscle size and strength: another study not designed to answer the question. Eur J Appl Physiol (accepted)Google Scholar
  4. Erskine RM, Fletcher G, Folland JP (2014) The contribution of muscle hypertrophy to strength changes following resistance training. Eur J Appl Physiol 114:1239–1249CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Narici MV, Hoppeler H, Kayser B et al (1996) Human quadriceps cross-sectional area, torque and neural activation during 6 months strength training. Acta Physiol Scand 157:175–186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Powell PL, Roy RR, Kanim P et al (1984) Predictability of skeletal muscle tension from architectural determinations in guinea pig hindlimbs. J Appl Physiol 57:1715–1721PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas G. Balshaw
    • 1
    • 2
  • Garry J. Massey
    • 1
    • 2
  • Thomas M. Maden-Wilkinson
    • 3
  • Jonathan P. Folland
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Arthritis Research UK Centre for Sport, Exercise and OsteoarthritisLoughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK
  2. 2.School of Sport, Exercise, and Health SciencesLoughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK
  3. 3.Faculty of Health and Wellbeing, Collegiate CampusSheffield Hallam UniversitySheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations