Sports Medicine

, Volume 31, Issue 12, pp 829–840 | Cite as

Neural Adaptations to Resistance Training

Implications for Movement Control
  • Timothy J. CarrollEmail author
  • Stephan Riek
  • Richard G. Carson
Current Opinion


It has long been believed that resistance training is accompanied by changes within the nervous system that play an important role in the development of strength. Many elements of the nervous system exhibit the potential for adaptation in response to resistance training, including supraspinal centres, descending neural tracts, spinal circuitry and the motor end plate connections between motoneurons and muscle fibres. Yet the specific sites of adaptation along the neuraxis have seldom been identified experimentally, and much of the evidence for neural adaptations following resistance training remains indirect. As a consequence of this current lack of knowledge, there exists uncertainty regarding the manner in which resistance training impacts upon the control and execution of functional movements. We aim to demonstrate that resistance training is likely to cause adaptations to many neural elements that are involved in the control of movement, and is therefore likely to affect movement execution during a wide range of tasks.

We review a small number of experiments that provide evidence that resistance training affects the way in which muscles that have been engaged during training are recruited during related movement tasks. The concepts addressed in this article represent an important new approach to research on the effects of resistance training. They are also of considerable practical importance, since most individuals perform resistance training in the expectation that it will enhance their performance in related functional tasks.


Resistance Training Transfer Task Resistance Training Exercise Neural Adaptation Muscle Recruitment 
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.


  1. 1.
    Abernethy PJ, Jurimae J, Logan P, et al. Acute and chronic response of skeletal muscle to resistance exercise. Sports Med 1994; 17 (1): 22–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baldwin KM, Haddad F. Effects of different activity and inactivity paradigms on myosin heavy chain gene expression in striated muscle. J Appl Physiol 2001; 90: 345–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Timson BF. Evaluation of animalmodels for the study of exercise induced muscle enlargement. J Appl Physiol 1990; 69: 1935–45PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Enoka RM. Neural adaptations with chronic physical activity. J Biomech 1997; 30 (5): 447–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Enoka RM. Neural strategies in the control of muscle force. Muscle Nerve Suppl 1997; 5: S66-S69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moritani T, deVries HA. Neural factors versus hypertrophy in the time course of muscle strength gain. Am J Phys Med 1979; 58 (3): 115–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sale DG. Neural adaptation to resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1988; 20 Suppl. 5: S135-S145Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carolan B, Carafelli E. Adaptations in coactivation after isometric resistance training. J Appl Physiol 1992; 73 (3): 911–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hakkinen K, Kallinen M, Izquierdo M, et al. Changes in agonist-antagonist EMG, muscle CSA, and force during strength training in middle-aged and older people. J Appl Physiol 1998; 84 (4): 1341–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hakkinen K, Alen M, Kallinen M, et al. Neuromuscular adaptation during prolonged strength training, detraining and re-strength-training in middle-aged and elderly people. Eur J Appl Physiol 2000; 83: 51–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Abernethy PJ, Jurimae J. Cross-sectional and longitudinal uses of isoinertial, isometric, and isokinetic dynamometry. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1996; 28: 1180–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pearson DR, Costill DL. The effects of constant external resistance exercise and isokinetic training on work-induced hypertrophy. J Appl Sport Sci Res 1988; 2: 39–41Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sale DG, Martin JE, Moroz DE. Hypertrophy without increased isometric strength after weight training. Eur J Appl Physiol 1992; 64: 51–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cormier SM, Hagman JD, editors. Transfer of learning: contemporary research and applications. New York (NY): Academic Press, 1987Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Adams JA. Historical review and appraisal of research on the learning, retention, and transfer of human motor skills. Psychol Bull 1987; 101: 41–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thorndike EL, Woodworth RS. The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions. I. Psychol Rev 1901; 8: 247–61Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Carroll TJ, Barry B, Riek S, et al. Resistance training enhances the stability of sensorimotor coordination. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2001; 268: 221–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dettmers C, Ridding MC, Stephan KM, et al. Comparison of regional cerebral blood flow with transcranial magnetic stimulation at different forces. J Appl Physiol 1996; 81 (2): 596–603PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kinsbourne M, Hicks RE. Mapping functional cerebral space: competition and collaboration in human performance. In: Kinsbourne M, editor. Asymmetrical function of the brain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978: 267–73Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carson RG. Neuromuscular-skeletal constraints upon the dynamics of perception-action coupling. Exp Brain Res 1996; 110: 99–110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Carson RG, Riek S. The influence of joint position on the dynamics of perception-action coupling. Exp Brain Res 1998; 121: 103–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cheney PD, Fetz EE, Mewes K. Neural mechanisms underlying corticospinal and rubrospinal control of limb movements. Prog Brain Res 1991; 87: 213–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yue GH, Liu JZ, Siemionow V, et al. Brain activation during human finger extension and flexion movements. Brain Res 2000; 856: 291–300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Friston KJ, Frith CD, Passingham RE, et al. Motor practice and neurophysiological adaptation in the cerebellum: a positron tomography study. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 1992; 248: 223–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hund-Georgiadis M, von Cramon DY. Motor-learning-related changes in piano players and non-musicians revealed by functional magnetic-resonance signals. Exp Brain Res 1999; 125: 417–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    van Mier H, Tempel LW, Perlmutter JS, et al. Changes in brain activity during motor learning measured with PET: effects of hand of performance and practice. J Neurophysiol 1998; 80: 2177–99PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rioult-Pedotti MS, Friedman D, Donoghue JP. Learning-induced LTP in neocortex. Science 2000; 290: 533–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rioult-Pedotti MS, Friedman D, Hess G, et al. Strengthening of horizontal cortical connections following skill learning. Natl Neurosci 1998; 1: 230–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Classen J, Liepert J, Wise SP, et al. Rapid plasticity of human cortical movement representation induced by practice. J Neurophysiol 1998; 79: 1117–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cohen LG, Ziemann U, Chen R, et al. Studies of neuroplasticity with transcranial magnetic stimulation. J Clin Neurophysiol 1998; 15 (4): 305–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Milner-Brown HS, Stein RB, Lee RG. Synchronization of human motor units: possible roles of exercise and supraspinal reflexes. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1975; 38: 245–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Datta AK, Farmer SF, Stephens JA. Central nervous pathways underlying synchronization of human motor unit firing studied during voluntary contractions. J Physiol 1991; 432: 401–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kirkwood PA, Sears TA. The synaptic connections to intercostal motoneurones as revealed by the average common excitation potential. J Physiol 1978; 275: 103–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sears TA, Stagg D. Short-term synchronization of intercostal motoneurone activity. J Physiol 1976, 263: 357–81PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Farmer SF, Ingram DA, Stephens JA. Mirror movements studied in a patient with Klippel-Fiel syndrome. J Physiol 1990; 428: 467–84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Farmer SF, Swash M, Ingram DA, et al. Changes in motor unit synchronization following central nervous lesions in man. J Physiol 1993; 463: 83–105PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yue G, Fuglevand AJ, Nordstrom MA, et al. Limitations of the surface electromyography technique for estimating motor unit synchronization. Biol Cybern 1995; 73: 223–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Semmler JG, Nordstrom MA. Motor unit discharge and force tremor in skill- and strength-trained individuals. Exp Brain Res 1998; 119: 27–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Halliday DM, Conway BA, Farmer SF, et al. Load-independent contributions from motor-unit synchronization to human physiological tremor. J Neurophysiol 1999; 82: 664–75PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yao W, Fuglevand RJ, Enoka RM. Motor-unit synchronization increases EMG amplitude and decreases force steadiness of simulated contractions. J Neurophysiol 2000; 83: 441–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bilodeau M, Keen DA, Sweeney PJ, et al. Strength training can improve steadiness in persons with essential tremor. Muscle Nerve 2000; 23: 771–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Keen DA, Yue GH, Enoka RM. Training related enhancement in the control of motor output in elderly humans. J Appl Physiol 1994; 77 (6): 2648–58PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Laidlaw DH, Kornatz KW, Keen DA, et al. Strength training improves the steadiness of slow lengthening contractions performed by old adults. J Appl Physiol 1999; 87: 1786–95PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Barrata R, Solomonow M, Zhou BH, et al. Muscular coactivation: the role of the antagonist musculature in maintaining knee stability. Am J Sports Med 1988; 16 (2): 113–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Carroll TJ, Abernethy PJ, Logan PA, et al. Resistance training frequency: strength and myosin heavy chain responses to two and three bouts per week. Eur J Appl Physiol 1998; 78: 270–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wiemann K, Tidow G. Relative activity of hip and knee extensors in sprinting - implications for training. New Stud Athlet 1995; 10: 29–49Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Porter R, Lemon R. Corticospinal function and voluntary movement. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    McCrea DA. Can sense be made of spinal interneuron circuits? Behav Brain Sci 1992; 15: 633–43Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    McCrea DA. Supraspinal and segmental interactions. Can J Physiol Pharm 1996; 74: 513–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Baldissera F, Hultoborn H, Illert M. Integration in spinal neuronal systems. I. In: Brookhart JM, Mountcastle VB, Brooks VB, et al., editors. Handbook of physiology: the nervous system II. Baltimore (MD): American Physiological Society, 1981Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bertolasi L, Priori A, Tinazzi M, et al. Inhibitory action of forearm flexor muscle afferents on corticospinal outputs to antagonist muscles in humans. J Physiol 1998; 511: 947–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Capaday C, Devanne H, Bertrand L, et al. Intracortical connections between motor cortical zones controlling antagonistic muscles in the cat: a combined anatomical and physiological study. Exp Brain Res 1998; 120: 223–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Bloedel JR. Functional heterogeneity with structural homogeneity: how does the cerebellum operate? Behav Brain Sci 1992; 15: 666–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ito M. Mechanisms of motor learning in the cerebellum. Brain Res 2000; 886: 237–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Marsden CD, Obeso JA. The functions of the basal ganglia and the paradox of stereotaxic surgery in Parkinson’s disease. Brain 1994; 117: 877–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Rao SM, Mayer AR, Harrington DL. The evolution of brain activation during temporal processing. Nat Neurosci 2001; 4: 317–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Jacobs KM, Donoghue JP. Reshaping the cortical motor map by unmasking latent intracortical connections. Science 1991; 251: 944–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Jenkins IH, Brooks DJ, Nixon PD, et al. Motor sequence learning: a study with positron emission tomography. J Neurosci 1994; 14 (6): 3775–90PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Jones TA, Chu CJ, Grande LA, et al. Motor skills training enhances lesion-induced structural plasticity in the motor cortex of adult rats. J Neurosci 1999; 19 (22): 10153–63PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Karni A, Meyer G, Jezzard P, et al. Functional MRI evidence for adult motor cortex plasticity during motor skill learning. Nature 1995; 377: 155–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Petersen SE, van Mier H, Fiez JA, et al. The effects of practice on the functional anatomy of task performance. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1998; 95: 853–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Butefisch CM, Davis BC, Wise SP, et al. Mechanisms of use dependent plasticity in the human motor cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2000; 97: 3661–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Martin SJ, Morris RG. Cortical plasticity: it’s all the rage! Curr Biol 2002; 11: R57-R59CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timothy J. Carroll
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stephan Riek
    • 1
  • Richard G. Carson
    • 1
  1. 1.Perception and Motor Systems Laboratory, The School of Human Movement StudiesThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations