Elsevier

Medical Hypotheses

Volume 84, Issue 2, February 2015, Pages 145-149
Medical Hypotheses

Intermittent hypoxic resistance training: Is metabolic stress the key moderator?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2014.12.001Get rights and content

Abstract

Traditionally, researchers and practitioners have manipulated acute resistance exercise variables to elicit the desired responses to training. However, recent research indicates that altering the muscular environment during resistance training, namely by implementing a hypoxic stimulus, can augment muscle hypertrophy and strength. Intermittent hypoxic resistance training (IHRT), whereby participants inspire hypoxic air during resistance training, has been previously demonstrated to increase muscle cross-sectional area and maximum strength by significantly greater amounts than the equivalent training in normoxia. However, some recent evidence has provided conflicting results, reporting that the use of systemic hypoxia during resistance training provided no added benefit. While the definitive mechanisms that may augment muscular responses to IHRT are not yet fully understood, an increased metabolic stress is thought to be important for moderating many downstream processes related to hypertrophy. It is likely that methodological differences between conflicting IHRT studies have resulted in different degrees of metabolic stress during training, particularly when considering the inter-set recovery intervals used. Given that the most fundamental physiological stresses resulting from hypoxia are disturbances to oxidative metabolism, it becomes apparent that resistance training may only benefit from additional hypoxia if the exercise is structured to elicit a strong metabolic response. We hypothesize that for IHRT to be more effective in producing muscular hypertrophy and increasing strength than the equivalent normoxic training, exercise should be performed with relatively brief inter-set recovery periods, with the aim of providing a potent metabolic stimulus to enhance anabolic responses.

Introduction

Resistance exercise is known to have a potent affect on skeletal muscle morphology and functional adaptations. Traditionally, researchers and practitioners have focused on manipulating acute resistance exercise variables to elicit the desired training response. These variables include the muscle action, loading and volume, exercise selection and order, inter-set rest periods, repetition velocity and training frequency [1]. However, recent evidence suggests that methods to alter the intramuscular environment during resistance exercise can be beneficial for stimulating hypertrophy and increases in muscular strength. The use of blood flow restriction (BFR) during resistance training has become increasingly popular for this purpose. This technique involves the application of a restrictive cuff, tourniquet or elastic wraps around the top of a limb, with the aim to somewhat maintain arterial inflow while occluding venous return from the exercising limb [2].

This technique creates a localized hypoxic environment in the limb during exercise, which is proposed to impact on downstream mechanisms that promote muscular development [3]. The novel aspect of training with BFR is that substantial improvements in muscular hypertrophy and strength are possible even when using low-loads (20–40% of concentric 1-repetition maximum [1RM]) for both clinical [4] and athletic [5], [6] populations. However, while the muscles of the trunk may benefit to some degree from BFR exercise [7], the trunk muscles are unable to be trained under the same conditions as the limbs. Furthermore, due to the low-loads employed during BFR exercise, motor unit recruitment (as estimated by surface electromyography) is lower than during traditional high-load exercise [8], [9], therefore limiting the potential for neuromuscular adaptations.

Another method to manipulate the intramuscular environment during resistance exercise that is not affected by these limitations is the addition of systemic hypoxia during training. Research has demonstrated that hypertrophic and strength responses can be enhanced by breathing hypoxic air during low-load (20% 1RM) [6], [10] and moderate-load (70% 1RM) [11] resistance training. However, some more recent evidence has provided conflicting results, reporting no additional benefit for muscular development following resistance training in systemic hypoxia [12], [13]. While scientific understanding of intermittent hypoxic resistance training (IHRT) is in its infancy, it appears that these conflicting results may be a result of differences in the research methodologies employed.

In particular, the inter-set rest periods used by researchers has varied greatly (30–120 s). Inter-set rest periods are often overlooked in the design of resistance training programs, particularly in recreational training settings. However, the rest period is a primary determinant of the overall intensity of a training session, particularly when the level of available oxygen is altered as it will directly impact on the metabolic stress induced by exercise [14]. As the metabolic response to resistance exercise is a proposed key moderator of subsequent adaptive responses [15], it stands to reason that inter-set rest periods should be carefully programmed during IHRT. In this paper, we hypothesize that due to the disturbances in energetic metabolism induced by hypoxia, the inter-set rest periods employed during IHRT are of primary importance to enhanced hypertrophic responses.

Section snippets

Conflicting results of IHRT studies

To date, six separate investigations have assessed the efficacy of IHRT for increased muscle hypertrophy and strength, compared with the equivalent training in normoxia. These studies are summarized in Table 1. Two papers have used low-load resistance training (20–30% 1RM), with Manimmanakorn et al. [6], [10] employing very brief inter-set rest periods (30 s), while Friedmann et al. [16] used longer rest intervals (60 s). Interestingly, Manimmanakorn et al. [6], [10] reported that IHRT elicited

Effects of inter-set rest periods on energetic metabolism

Inter-set rest periods are most often manipulated in response to the intensity of exercise being performed. For example, maximal strength and power training (1–6 repetitions per set using heavy loads) generally utilize long rest intervals (180–480 s) to allow for sufficient neuromuscular recovery, and replenishment of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and phosphocreatine (PCr) stores [14], [18]. However, training focused on hypertrophic responses (8–12 repetitions per set using moderate loads)

Hypoxia-mediated challenges for energetic metabolism

The importance of oxygen availability for PCr resynthesis was first established by Harris et al. [20], who implemented a pneumatic cuff around the thigh (240 mmHg) for 6 min following a bout of isometric knee extension. As a result of the ischemic condition, PCr resynthesis was completely suppressed. Furthermore, when the cuff was deflated for 25 s following 90 s of ischemic recovery and then reinflated, PCr stores recovered to levels that would be expected following 25 s of free flow recovery.

Anabolic effects of metabolic stress

The hypertrophic responses to resistance training are thought to be largely related to the metabolic stress induced by exercise, which is typically estimated via the accumulation of metabolites such as lactate, hydrogen ions and inorganic phosphate, and by changes in pH levels. Recently, it has been proposed that increased levels of metabolic stress can impact on several downstream mechanisms to facilitate muscular hypertrophy [3], [15]. For example, it is possible that metabolic stress can

Considerations for training programs

From current evidence, it appears that relatively short inter-set rest periods are required during IHRT to take advantage of hypoxia-mediated disturbances to oxidative metabolism, and subsequently enhance hypertrophic responses. Furthermore, it is likely that, as with traditional resistance training, the inter-set rest period is related to the intensity of the loads lifted. Low-load IHRT appears beneficial when using very brief rest periods (30 s), whereas moderate-load IHRT is most effective

Conclusions

In conclusion, it is important when designing IHRT research studies that we consider the fundamental physiological stressors imposed by hypoxia (disturbances to oxidative metabolic processes). We hypothesize that the added benefits for muscular growth and strength will only be facilitated by IHRT programs that make use of short inter-set rest periods, with the aim to enhance the metabolic responses to exercise. More specifically, it appears that low-load IHRT requires rest intervals of ∼30 s,

Conflict of interest statement

None of the authors report any conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

This paper was not supported by funding from an outside source.

References (40)

  • S.B. Cook et al.

    Neuromuscular function after a bout of low-load blood flow-restricted exercise

    Med Sci Sports Exerc

    (2013)
  • T.M. Manini et al.

    Blood flow restricted exercise and skeletal muscle health

    Exerc Sport Sci Rev

    (2009)
  • A. Manimmanakorn et al.

    Effects of resistance training combined with vascular occlusion or hypoxia on neuromuscular function in athletes

    Eur J Appl Physiol

    (2013)
  • A. Nishimura et al.

    Hypoxia increases muscle hypertrophy induced by resistance training

    Int J Sports Physiol Perform

    (2010)
  • J.Y. Ho et al.

    Combining normobaric hypoxia with short-term resistance training has no additive beneficial effect on muscular performance and body composition

    J Strength Cond Res

    (2014)
  • M. Kon et al.

    Effects of systemic hypoxia on human muscular adaptations to resistance exercise training

    Physiol Rep

    (2014)
  • W.J. Kraemer et al.

    Fundamentals of resistance training: progression and exercise prescription

    Med Sci Sports Exerc

    (2004)
  • B.J. Schoenfeld

    Potential mechanisms for a role of metabolic stress in hypertrophic adaptations to resistance training

    Sports Med

    (2013)
  • B. Friedmann et al.

    Effects of low-resistance/high-repetition strength training in hypoxia on muscle structure and gene expression

    Pflügers Arch

    (2003)
  • K. Kurobe et al.

    Effects of resistance training under hypoxic conditions on muscle hypertrophy and strength

    Clin Physiol Funct Imaging

    (2014)
  • View full text