Effects of upper-body, lower-body, or combined resistance training on the ratio of follistatin and myostatin in middle-aged men
Due to the mechanistic role of myostatin and follistatin in modulating muscle mass, shifts in the follistatin to myostatin ratio (F:M) may help explain changes in muscular size in response to resistance training (RT). The present study examined whether differential responses in follistatin and myostatin occur based on the amount of active musculature in a RT program in middle-aged men.
Forty middle-aged men (age = 46.5 ± 3.1 years) were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 groups, upper-body RT (UB; n = 10), lower-body RT (LB; n = 10), combined RT (UB + LB; n = 10) or control (C; n = 10). The training protocol consisted of three exercise sessions per week for 8 weeks. Blood samples were obtained at baseline and 48 h after the final session of the training program.
Muscle mass significantly increased (p < 0.05) following UB = 0.76 ± 0.46 kg, LB = 0.90 ± 0.29 kg, UB + LB = 1.38 ± 0.70 kg, compared to no changes after control. Serum follistatin increased in the LB = 0.24 ± 0.06 ng mL−1, UB = 0.27 ± 0.17 ng mL−1, UB + LB = 0.50 ± 0.18 ng mL−1, while serum myostatin decreased in the LB = − 0.11 ± 0.08 ng mL−1 and UB + LB = − 0.34 ± 0.23 ng mL−1, but not UB = 0.07 ± 0.16 ng mL−1. Further, change in concentration following training was larger between UB + LB and either LB or UB alone for both follistatin and myostatin.
Both UB and LB increase muscle mass and alter the F: M ratio; however, the change in these endocrine markers is approximately twice as large if UB and LB is combined. The endocrine response to RT of myostatin and follistatin may depend on the volume of muscle mass activated during training.
KeywordsFollistatin Myostatin Resistance training Follistatin to myostatin ratio
Follistatin to myostatin ratio
Skeletal muscle mass
Percent body fat
Body mass index
Lean body mass
One repetition maximum
- ng mL−1
Nanograms per milliliter
- UB + LB
Upper body + lower body
Analysis of variance
Insulin-like growth factor 1
The authors wish to thank all the participants in this research project.
AR conceived and designed research. RB conducted the experiments and wrote the paper. AW and JM fixed grammatical mistakes. In addition, AW analyzed data, contributed in writing the paper and preparing revisions. MSM analyzed the nutrition data. BTE analyzed the other data, wrote the result sections and fixed all the section of the paper academically. Finally, all the authors read and approved the manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
- Goto K, Nagasawa M, Yanagisawa O, Kizuka T, Ishii N, Takamatsu K (2004) Muscular adaptations to combinations of high-and low-intensity resistance exercises. J Strength Cond Res 18:730–737Google Scholar
- Grgic J, Mcllvenna LC, Fyfe JJ, Sabol F, Bishop DJ, Schoenfeld BJ, Pedisic Z (2018) Does aerobic training promote the same skeletal muscle hypertrophy as resistance training? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med 49:1–22Google Scholar
- Haff GG, Triplett NT (2015) Essentials of strength training and conditioning, 4th edn. Human kineticsGoogle Scholar
- Negaresh R, Ranjbar R, Habibi A, Mokhtarzade M, Fokin A, Gharibvand M (2017) The effect of resistance training on quadriceps muscle volume and some growth factors in elderly and young men. Adv Gerontol Uspekhi Gerontol 30:880–887Google Scholar
- Yarasheski K, Bhasin S, Sinha-Hikim I, Pak-Loduca J, Gonzalez-Cadavid N (2002) Serum myostatin-immunoreactive protein is increased in 60–92 year old women and men with muscle wasting. J Nutr Health Ageing 6:343–348Google Scholar