Ultrasound Muscle Thickness Is a Poor Index of Criterion Magnetic Resonance Imaging Measures of Resistance Training-Induced Muscle Growth

Le résumé fourni par la source

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare group level resistance training (RT)-induced changes in ultrasound measured muscle thickness (ΔMTUS) with criterion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measures of muscle growth (i.e. changes in maximum anatomical cross-sectional area [ΔACSAMRI] and volume [ΔVOLMRI]), and examine the relationship between ΔMTUS and both ΔACSAMRI and ΔVOLMRI, for the quadriceps femoris (QF) and its constituent muscles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Healthy young males (n=39) completed 15 weeks of lower-body RT (knee extension, knee flexion, and leg press; x3 sessions/wk). Pre and post RT participants undertook dominant thigh musculoskeletal scans. Ultrasound and MRI scans were manually segmented to quantify pre to post ΔMTUS, ΔACSAMRI, and ΔVOLMRI of constituent muscles and the overall QF. RESULTS: ΔMTUS significantly underestimated increases in ΔACSAMRI (0.001≤ p ≤0.002) and ΔVOLMRI (0.001≤ p ≤0.012) for the overall QF and two out of four constituent muscles (vastus lateralis and vastus medialis), with a mean offset/underestimate of more than half the change in criterion MRI measures, and an average individual error that was typically more than the change in criterion MRI measures. Although vastus intermedius and rectus femoris ΔMTUS did not differ compared to ΔACSAMRI, and ΔVOLMRI (0.057 ≤ p ≤ 0.113). There were no significant bivariate correlations between ΔMTUS and either ΔACSAMRI or ΔVOLMRI for the overall QF (-0.152 ≤ r ≤ -0.015, 0.393≤ adjusted p ≤1.431) or any constituent muscles of the QF (-0.197 ≤ r ≤ 0.422, 0.140≤ adjusted p ≤1.002) in absolute or relative terms. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, ΔMTUS was not an accurate or valid index of RT-induced muscle growth and it is recommended to exercise substantial caution in the use and interpretation of MTUS in the context of RT adaptation.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.