Participants
Of a total of forty-six male participants initially included in the study, twenty seven elderly and ten young male participants completed the protocol. Their characteristics are presented in Table 2. Over the nine participants who did not complete the entire experimental protocol, one had to be excluded for non-compliance with the training protocol, four were unfortunately affected by a pathology requiring treatment incompatible with our protocol, and four contracted an injury outside training. Concerning the analysis of the participant characteristics of the different groups, as expected there is a significant difference in average age between the youth group and the senior groups (p < 0.001). For all other parameters (height and weight), no significant differences were observed between the groups (p > 0.05).
Reliability
For all the investigated parameters, ICC and RMS differences in muscle volume of the 7 investigated muscles before training were calculated as presented in Table 3. The results indicate an RMS difference of the CSA below 1.0 ± 0.5 cm² for all the curves of the different muscles. The ICC values ranged from 0.79 ±0.04 to 0.90 ±0.01 for each muscle volumes.
For age and training effects, the mean values of each parameter obtained during the two pre-training sessions (4 weeks and just before the beginning of training) were not significantly different (p > 0.6), therefore the values obtained in these two tests were averaged to get the pre-training value.
Regression model
In order to better correspond to the anatomy we chose the smallest degree of the polynomial adjustment curve that passed through proximal and distal origins of the muscle and had a sufficient determination coefficient (R²>0.8).
By comparing different polynomials of different degrees, a 3rd degree polynomial adjustment for quadriceps muscles (VL, VI, VM, RF), and a 4th degree polynomial for triceps surae muscles (GL. GM, soleus) were used. All regression constants for each muscle for the young and old groups are shown in Table 4.
Effect of aging
Anatomical Cross Sectional area of the contractile part(ACSA)
Quadriceps
The evolution of the regression equations characterizing the mean evolution of the ACSA of the quadriceps muscles for young and old groups are presented in Fig. 1.
Statistical analysis of the mean ACSA values calculated every 25% of the relative length of the VL, VI, and VM muscles shows no significant difference between the 2 groups (p > 0.05) (Fig. 2). Only RF muscle shows a significantly higher relative ACSA in the young than the elderly on the portion 50-75% and 75-100% from its relative length (p<0.05).
Triceps surae
Fig. 3 shows the regression equations obtained from the three individual muscles composing the triceps surae. No significant difference in ACSA was observed over the entire length of the muscle between the young and elderly groups in LG and soleus muscles (Fig. 4). However, the mean relative ACSA values of MG muscle on the portion 0-25% and 25-50% of the relative muscle length were significantly higher for the young compared to the old group (p < 0.05).
Muscle volume
Muscle volumes presented here are based only on contractile material as determined and detailed previously.
Quadriceps
For quadriceps muscles, the young group showed higher muscle volume in VL, VM and RF (+27.3%, +28.1% (p<0.01) and +34.3% p<0.001, respectively) compared to the old group (Fig. 5 - A). However, no difference in muscle volume between young and old could be identified for the VI (p > 0.05). Concerning the total volume of the quadriceps, the young group shows significantly higher values (+24.4%, p<0.01) compared to the old group.
Triceps surae
Data in Fig. 5 - B shows a higher muscle volume in the young group for MG (+18.0%; p<0.01), LG (+20.9%; p<0.001) and Soleus (Sol) (+20.7%; p<0.001). The total volume of triceps surae (TS) is also significantly higher in young participants than seniors (+19.9%; p<0.01).
Non contractile tissue material
Table 5 shows the volume of fat and connective tissue in each muscle from both groups (young and old). The old group presents a higher absolute volume of non-contractile material than young men in the RF muscle (p<0.05) and also in all TS muscles (MG: +121% (p<0.05) ; LG : +87% (p<0.01); Sol : +87% (p<0.01)), as well as a higher total volume of non-contractile material in TS (+96%, p<0.01). However, no significant differences in non-contractile material volume between young and old could be identified for the VL, VI, VM and the total Quadriceps (p > 0.05). Moreover, a significant difference is observed between the relative volume of non-contractile material in relation to the total contractile volume on both muscle groups (quadriceps and TS) on old group (p<0.05).
Effect of training
Anatomical Cross Sectional area of the contractile part(ACSA)
Quadriceps
The evolution of ACSA of each quadriceps muscle for each training group are presented in Fig. 6. For the young group who trained at 55% of 1RM (Y55), statistical analysis of the mean ACSA values calculated every 25% of the relative length, shows a significant increase between pre and post training in the VL muscle on the portions 0-25%, 25-50% (+7.6%; p<0.01) and 50-75% (+3.1%; p<0.05) from its relative length. The 12-week training period induced a significant increase on muscle VI on the portions 25-50% (+6.0%; p<0.01) and 50-75% (+3.6%; p<0.05) of its relative length.
Concerning the old group who trained at 55% of 1RM (O55), over the intervals corresponding to 25% to 100% of the relative length, the mean ACSA values of the VL muscle were significantly higher following training (+6.7%; p<0.05). Similarly, on the VI muscle, the mean ACSA increased on the portions 25 to 50% (+3.6%; p<0.05) and 50 to 75% (5.1%; p<0.01) after the training period. The VM muscle showed a significant increase on the portion 0 to 50% (+4.4%; p<0.05).
For the group that trained at 80% 1RM (O80), mean ACSA values of VL muscle over intervals corresponding to 50% to 75% (+5.2%; p<0.01) and 75 to 100% (+4.0%; p<0.05) of the relative muscle length were significantly higher after training. VI and VM muscles also increased in the portion 25 to 50% after 12 weeks of training (+5.4% and +4.1% respectively p<0.05). However, training had no effect on average ACSA values of RF muscle (p>0.05) regardless of training group.
Triceps surae
On the triceps surae muscles, the young group increased mean ACSA of the MG and LG muscles on the portion 25-50% and 50-75% (+3.7% and +8.0% respectively; p<0.05) respectively (Fig. 6). For the O55 group, the training program induced an increase in MG and LG ACSA on portion 50 to 75% (+10.9% and +14.1% respectively; p<0.01) and also 25 to 50% for LG (+9.0%; p<0.05) and on 75 to 100% for MG (+6.4%; p<0.05). LG muscle showed an increase but only on the portion 25 to 50% (+9.5%; p<0.05) of its relative length after 12 weeks of training for the old group who trained at 80% of 1RM (O80). However, training had no effect on average ACSA values of soleus muscle (p>0.05) whatever the training group.
Muscle volume
Quadriceps
Fig. 7 shows the variation of muscle volume before and after the training period on quadriceps for each training group. For the young group who trained at 55% of 1RM (Y55), the 12-week training period induced a significant increase in muscle volume on VL (+5.1%; p<0.05), on VI (+4.8%; p<0.05) and on the total quadriceps volume (+4.3%; p<0.05). However, no difference in muscle volume was observed following training for VM (+3.1%; p=0.08) and RF (+3.4%; p=0.1). The results for the senior group who trained at 55% of 1RM (O55) show a significant increase in muscle volume on VL (+8.3%; p<0.05), VI (+6.1%; p<0.01), VM (+5.4%; p<0.05), and total quadriceps (+6.7%; p<0.01) following the training program. However, no difference was found after the training period for the RF in this training group (+5.6%; p=0.12). For the old men group who trained at 80% (O80), training induced a significant increase in muscle volume on VL (+4.3%; p<0.05), VI (+4.7%; p<0.05), VM (+3.6%; p<0.05), as well as on the total volume of the quadriceps (+4.2%; p<0.05). However, training had no effect on the volume of RF (+3.8%; p=0.2).
Triceps surae
Concerning the TS muscles (Fig. 7), the 12-week training period induced a significant increase in muscle volume on MG (+3.8%; p<0.05), LG (+8.4%; p<0.05) and on total TS volume (+2.8%; p<0.05) for the young group who trained at 55% of 1RM (Y55). However, no difference in muscle volume was observed following training for soleus (p=0.77). The senior group who trained at 55% of 1RM (O55) showed a significant increase in muscle volume on MG (+10.5 %; p<0.05), LG (+14.6%; p<0.05) and total triceps surae volume (+7.5%; p<0.05) following the training program. No difference was found after the training period for soleus muscle in this group (p=0.47). The results of the O80 group showed a significant increase in muscle volume on MG (+8.2%, p<0.05), LG (+9.0%; p<0.05) as well as the total volume of TS (4.3%; p<0.05) after the training period. In contrast, training had no effect on the volume of the soleus muscle (p=0.58).
Comparison between gain in muscle volumes with training
The gains for each muscle on quadriceps and triceps surae between pre and post training are shown in Table 6. In the following A refers to differential effects of training with age and Qd refers to differential effects of training on each muscle on triceps surae compared to each muscle of Quadriceps. Gain in MG muscle volume was greater in old than in young men (A, p<0.05) and likewise for gain in TS muscle in old group than in young men (A, p<0.01 for O55 vs.Y55). A training effect on LG was observed (Qd, p<0.05) with all groups increasing better than gains in volumes of each muscle of quadriceps group. Moreover, a multiple comparison procedure indicated a significantly greater increase in O55 than Y55 (p<0.01) on average gains, while no difference between O55 and O80 was observed.