PresentationPDF Available

Resistance Training in Hypoxia: A comparison of acute physiological responses when exercising to failure or not.

Authors:
Thomas Peter Walden at University Health Network
Thomas Peter Walden
Olivier Girard at University of Western Australia
Olivier Girard
Andrew Jonson at Swinburne University of Technology
Andrew Jonson
Alasdair R Dempsey at Murdoch University
Alasdair R Dempsey
Show all 6 authorsHide
Download file PDF
Read file
Download citation
Content uploaded by Thomas Peter Walden
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Thomas Peter Walden on Jul 27, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
MASS
L A B O R A T O R Y
MURDOCH APPLIED SPORTS SCIENCE
Resistance Training in Hypoxia
A comparison of acute physiological
responses when exercising to failure or not
Conference 2019 - Gold Coast, Australia.
Walden T. P., Girard O.,Jonson A. M., Dempsey A., Marston K. J., and Scott B. R.
Hypoxic Resistance Training Overview
↑ Accumulation of
metabolites
↑ Cell swelling
↑ Fibre
recruitment
(type II)
↑ Hormonal
Response
↑ Intramuscular
signaling
↑ Protein
Synthesis
↑ Muscular Size
↑ Muscular
Strength
↓ Oxygen
available to the
muscle
Acidic Muscular
Environment
Acute Training Effects
Chronic Training Effects
Legend
Exercise Structure
Acute Physiological
Responses
Hypoxic Resistance Training Overview
Muscular Size Muscular Strength
Hypoxic Dose
Experimental Purpose
Exercise Structure
Failure v’s Non-failure
Hypoxic Dose
Hypoxia v’s Normoxic
Acute Physiological
Responses
Cardiovascular
Stress Metabolic Stress Muscle Activation Muscular Swelling
Oxygen
Availability
Methods –Experimental Design
Shoulder Press Bench Press
Pre Testing –10RM Testing
Hypoxia
13% Fi02
Normoxia
21% Fi02
Failure Non-
Failure Failure Non-
Failure
Randomised
FAILURE
Set 1 –100% 10RM
Set 2 –80% 10RM
Set 3 –60% 10RM
Non-FAILURE
Set 1&2 –100% 10RM
Set 3&4–80% 10RM
Set 5&6 –60% 10RM
20 male participants with ≥2 year lifting experience.
(age: 23.3 ± 1.8 years; height: 178.6 ± 7.4cm; weight: 77.9 ± 11.5 kg)
Methods –Failure Session
10min 3min
60s inter-set 60s inter-set
Shoulder Press Bench Press
Acclimatisation
Blood Lactate
Heart Rate
Ultrasound
iEMG
Warm-up Set
Working Set
Legend
SpO2
NIRS
5min
Methods –Non-failure Session
10min 3min
Shoulder Press Bench Press
Acclimatisation
60s inter-set 60s inter-set
5min
Blood Lactate
Heart Rate
Ultrasound
iEMG
Warm-up Set
Working Set
SpO2
NIRS
Legend
MEAN
NORM
NF 58.3 ± 2.1
HYPO
NF 53.2 ± 2.1
NORM
F53.7 ± 2.2
HYPO
F48.1 ± 2.1
Results –Muscle Oxygenation
•HYPOF Sig↓ than HYPONF, NORMF & NORMNF
MEAN
NORM
NF 58.3 ± 2.1
HYPO
NF 53.2 ± 2.1
NORM
F53.7 ± 2.2
HYPO
F48.1 ± 2.1
Results –Muscle Oxygenation
•HYPOF Sig↓ than HYPONF, NORMF & NORMNF
•HYPONF and NORMF Sig↓ than NORMNF
MEAN
NORM
NF 58.3 ± 2.1
HYPO
NF 53.2 ± 2.1
NORM
F53.7 ± 2.2
HYPO
F48.1 ± 2.1
Results –Muscle Oxygenation
•HYPOF Sig↓ than HYPONF, NORMF & NORMNF
•HYPONF and NORMF Sig↓ than NORMNF
•No Difference NORMF& HYPONF
Results –Metabolite Accumulation
PRE
-EXERCISE
SHOULDER PRESS
BENCH PRESS
NORM
NF 1.1 ± 0.4 3.7 ± 1.2 3.5 ± 1.2
HYPO
NF 1.1 ± 0.3 4.2 ± 0.7 4.3 ± 1.0
NORM
F1.1 ± 0.3 8.3 ± 1.2 10.6 ± 1.7
HYPO
F1.2 ± 0.3 9.2 ± 2.0 11.0 ± 2.1
•Failure Sig ↑compared to non-failure regardless of condition
PRE
-EXERCISE
SHOULDER PRESS
BENCH PRESS
NORM
NF 1.1 ± 0.4 3.7 ± 1.2 3.5 ± 1.2
HYPO
NF 1.1 ± 0.3 4.2 ± 0.7 4.3 ± 1.0
NORM
F1.1 ± 0.3 8.3 ± 1.2 10.6 ± 1.7
HYPO
F1.2 ± 0.3 9.2 ± 2.0 11.0 ± 2.1
Results –Metabolite Accumulation
•Failure Sig ↑compared to non-failure regardless of condition
•HYPONF Sig ↑ compared to NORMNF at both time points
PRE
-EXERCISE
SHOULDER PRESS
BENCH PRESS
NORM
NF 1.1 ± 0.4 3.7 ± 1.2 3.5 ± 1.2
HYPO
NF 1.1 ± 0.3 4.2 ± 0.7 4.3 ± 1.0
NORM
F1.1 ± 0.3 8.3 ± 1.2 10.6 ± 1.7
HYPO
F1.2 ± 0.3 9.2 ± 2.0 11.0 ± 2.1
Results –Metabolite Accumulation
•Failure Sig ↑compared to non-failure regardless of condition
•HYPONF Sig ↑ compared to NORMNF at both time points
•HYPOF Sig ↑ compared to NORMF post shoulder press
Results –Metabolite Accumulation
REST SHOULDER PRESS BENCH PRESS
NORM
NF 1.1 ± 0.4 3.7 ± 1.2 3.5 ± 1.2
HYPO
NF 1.1 ± 0.3 4.2 ± 0.7 4.3 ± 1.0
NORM
F1.1 ± 0.3 8.3 ± 1.2 10.6 ± 1.7
HYPO
F1.2 ± 0.3 9.2 ± 2.0 11.0 ± 2.1
•Failure Sig ↑compared to non-failure regardless of condition
•HYPONF Sig ↑ compared to NORMNF at both time points
•HYPOF Sig ↑ compared to NORMF post shoulder press
•NO Sig Difference HYPOF and NORMF post bench press
Results –Muscular Activation
Shoulder Press Bench Press
100% 80% 60% 100% 80% 60%
18 ± 5 10 ± 3 7 ± 2 13 ± 4 6 ± 2 6 ±
NF 18 ± 7 9 ± 3 7 ± 2 11 ± 4 6 ± 4 6 ± 2
F23 ± 5 16 ± 5 16 ± 7 22 ± 6 17 ± 7 17 ± 7
HYPOF24 ± 7 18 ± 6 15 ± 4 21 ± 5 15 ± 6 17 ± 7
•Failure Sig ↑compared to non-failure regardless of
condition
Shoulder Press Bench Press
100% 80% 60% 100% 80% 60%
18 ± 5 10 ± 3 7 ± 2 13 ± 4 6 ± 2 6 ±
NF 18 ± 7 9 ± 3 7 ± 2 11 ± 4 6 ± 4 6 ± 2
F23 ± 5 16 ± 5 16 ± 7 22 ± 6 17 ± 7 17 ± 7
HYPOF24 ± 7 18 ± 6 15 ± 4 21 ± 5 15 ± 6 17 ± 7
Results –Muscular Activation
•Failure Sig ↑compared to non-failure regardless of
condition
•100%10RM Sig ↑compared to subsequent sets
Practical Applications
↓ Muscle Oxygen
Availability
Hypoxia doesn’t
Effect Acute
Performance
↑ Metabolic Stress
of Resistance
Training
NO IMPACT ON
MUSCLE
ACTIVATION
Thomas Walden BSc (Hons)
thomas.walden@Murdoch.edu.au
@TomWalden89
0427995608
Dr Brendan Scott
Dr Olivier Girard
Questions
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.