Article Title



Stephanie A. Sontag1, Justin X. Nicoll2, Andrew C. Fry1, Eric M. Mosier3;1University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; 2California State University, Northridge, CA; 3Northwest Missouri State University, Maryville, MO.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the acute androgen receptor (AR) and glucocorticoid receptor (GR) response to a moderate intensity resistance exercise bout in resistance trained(RT)and untrained men(UT). METHODS:RT men (n = 10; X± SD, age = 21.3 ± 1.7 yrs, height = 175.8 ± 6.8 cm, body mass = 84.5 ± 13.5 kg, back squat 1RM = 154.3 ± 19.3 kg, training history = 5.4 ± 2.0 yrs) and UT men(n = 9; X± SD, age = 20.8 ± 3.1 yrs , height = 178.7 ± 8.9 cm, body mass = 81.0 ± 14.0 kg, squat 1RM = 108.1 ± 13.7 kg, training history = 0.7 ± 1.7 yrs) volunteered for this study. Prior to the RE bout, subjects were strength tested for back squat(BS) and leg extension(LE). Subjects returned 4-7 days later between 10am-2pm, and completed a RE bout consisting of 6 sets of 10 repetitions of BS at 75% 1RM, immediately followed by 4 sets of 10 repetitions of LE at 75% 1RM with 1.5 min rest between all sets. Muscle samples were collected from the vastus lateralis prior to exercise (PRE) and 10 min(10P), 30 min(30P), 60 min(60P),and 180 min(180P)post exercise. Total AR and GR expression was determined via western blotting. Recept or data were not normally distributed, thus all receptor data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U test, Friedman test, and Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: For total AR expression, there were no differences between time points within the RT group (p>.05); however, there were differences between time points within the UT group (p= .016). In the UT group, total AR expression significantly decreased at 30P (-19%∆, z= -2.192, p= .027) and 60P (-11%∆,z= -2.192, p= .027)post exercise, but returned to baseline values by 180P (z= -.178, p> .05). For Total GR content, there were no differences between time points within the RT or UT groups (p> .05). Total GR content was significantly greater in the RT group compared to the UT group at 10P (Mann-Whitney U= 19, z= -2.123, p= .035). CONCLUSION: While no changes were observed for AR expression in the RT group, the UT subjects experienced a significant decrease in AR expression at 30P and 60P suggesting acute AR responses vary depending on training status. No differences were seen across time for the GR in either group; however, RT and UT subjects were different from each other at 10P. It is unclear if these responses are related to the acute hormonal response; therefore, future research will address this.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: This study was funded by the NSCA Foundation and the KU General Research Fund.

This document is currently not available here.