Not exact matches
In contrast, a similar analysis of F66 transgenic mice revealed that although total fiber number was
increased slightly (16 %), the overall
increase in gastrocnemius / plantaris mass resulted almost entirely from muscle fiber hypertrophy (93 %
increase in
cross-sectional area).
As the
cross-sectional area of the muscle would be expected to be roughly proportional to the square of the diameter,
increased fiber diameter in Mstn − / − mice would correspond to an approximately 43 %
increase in fiber mass.
There are numerous studies that show at least a 5 %
increase in
cross-sectional area after performing an isometrics program.
The subjects
increased the amount of muscular force (think strength and power) by 45 % AND had a 5 % growth in
cross-sectional area of the muscle.
In one mouse study, the IGF - 1 gene was placed in the animals» glutes and calves, which resulted in up to a 115 %
increase in muscle -
cross-sectional area.
Although single fiber force also
increased, this was caused by an
increase in the
cross-sectional area, and single fiber force normalized to
cross-sectional area did not alter.
This suggests that changes in
cross-sectional area are not responsible for velocity - specificity, although perhaps the lack of
increase in muscle size along with an
increase in strength could be beneficial if it reduces the weight of the limbs being accelerated.
Indeed, over a 2 - year period of Olympic weightlifting training, Häkkinen et al. (1988) observed 6 %
increases in size of the vastus lateralis muscle
cross-sectional area.
However, it is also noted that observations of greater hypertrophy in type II muscle fibers could potentially be more a function of the type of strength training programs that are conventionally used to study
increases in muscle
cross-sectional area than of the responsiveness of this particular muscle fiber type (Ogborn & Schoenfeld, 2014).
The ST group show improved muscle quality (mean ± SE: 28 ± 3) vs CON -LRB--4 ± 2, p < 0.001) and
increased type I (860 ± 252µm2) and type II fiber
cross-sectional area (720 ± 285µm2) compared to CON (type I: -164 ± 290µm2, p = 0.04; and type II: -130 ± 336µm2, p = 0.04).
However, Vigotsky et al. (2015) performed a musculoskeletal modelling investigation and found that a 100 %
increase in anatomical
cross-sectional area led to
increases in the internal moment arm lengths of the biceps brachii and brachialis by 27.2 % and 37.3 %, respectively.
Generally, muscle
cross-sectional area was identified as driving muscle force, and hypertrophy was believed to
increase net internal joint moments primarily by this means.
Most studies have reported that the number of capillaries per unit muscle
cross-sectional area does not change with strength training (Lüthi et al. 1986; Tesch et al. 1990; Hather et al. 1991; McCall et al. 1996), although the number of capillaries per muscle fiber might
increase slightly (Hather et al. 1991; McCall et al. 1996) or remain constant (Campos et al. 2002).
However, since PCSA is expected to
increase to a greater extent than anatomical
cross-sectional area because of the compensatory effects of pennation angle, this is likely a function of methodological weaknesses rather than any failure of resistance - training to produce meaningful changes in PCSA.
Similarly, Yasuda et al. (2014) found that gluteus maximus
cross-sectional area was
increased by 4.4 % after a 12 - week period of leg press training using blood flow restriction, 2 times per week, in elderly males and females.
The valves are cut to allow air past even when fully - closed, but since they restrict the
cross-sectional area of the intake runners, the velocity of the incoming air is
increased, resulting in better fuel atomization in idle and low - engine - speed conditions.
As the mortality rate
increased, the basal
area - the
cross-sectional area at a height of 1.3 m of all trees larger than 10 cm in diameter, and an indicator of the amount of carbon stored - decreased.