SPECIAL COMMUNICATIONS
Letters to the Editor-in-Chief
PNEUMATIC RESISTANCE MACHINES
CAN PROVIDE ECCENTRIC LOADING
Dear Editor-in-Chief:
In a recent article by Willoughby (5) entitled “Effects of
Heavy Resistance Training on Myostatin mRNA and
Protein Expression,” the author made conclusions that are
in error resulting presumably from his misunderstanding
of our training protocol (1). The author stated that only
concentric contractions were used in our resistance train-
ing program. This misunderstanding is most likely based
on the author’s false assumption that because we used the
word “pneumatic” (compressed air) in our description of
the Keiser resistance training equipment (Keiser Corp.,
Fresno, CA) that the equipment does not provide resis-
tance during the eccentric phase of movement. The
Keiser equipment used in our investigations does include
an eccentric component (4). The author states on page
575 that “no studies are known to exist that evaluate the
effects of a dynamic heavy resistance training program on
myostatin expression,” which was exactly the purpose of
our study (1). Another example of a conclusion resulting
from this false assumption is on page 580 where Wil-
loughby states, “expression of the myostatin gene may be
more responsive to eccentric contractions.” Because our
study did contain a significant eccentric component and
we observed decreases in myostatin mRNA levels in
response to strength training, this conclusion by Wil-
loughby has a questionable foundation.
The author also states in the last page of the Discussion
that our training protocol used only moderate resistance,
contrasting his heavy resistance protocol. We suspect that
this conclusion may be based on his thinking that our
protocol did not include an eccentric component, that we
used a high number of repetitions in our training program,
or both. However, we specifically stated in our Methods
section that all repetitions were “performed at near maximal
resistance, thus resulting in a highly strenuous muscle load-
ing stimulus.” This technique is possible with the Keiser
equipment because resistance can be changed while a sub-
ject is exercising without having to change the cadence of
the exercise. In our work (1,2), the resistance was always set
at a 5RM load at the beginning of each set and was only
reduced enough to perform one or two additional repetitions
when failure was approached. Thus, our subjects performed
50 repetitions (over 4 sets) at or near maximal effort, a
heavy resistance stimulus.
Beyond the issue of training stimulus, we were sur-
prised to see that Willoughby concludes that activin IIb
1655
receptor levels decreased in response to his resistance
training program; such a decrease is not shown in Figure
5 or described in the Results (5). In addition, myostatin
protein levels were measured using a polyclonal antimyo-
statin antibody. The specificity of an antimyostatin anti-
body is critical to demonstrate in any study, given the
sequence homology of myostatin (GDF-8) to GDF-11,
another TGF-beta family member (3). As multiple myo-
statin antibodies are available from Santa Cruz Biotech-
nology, Inc. (Santa Cruz, CA), at least one of which is
recommended for the detection of both myostatin and
GDF-11, Willoughby should at minimum specify the
antibody used, if not providing confirmation of the anti-
body’s specificity to myostatin.
Stephen M. Roth
Marc A. Rogers
Ben F. Hurley
Department of Kinesiology
College of Health and Human Performance
University of Maryland
College Park, MD
Gregory F. Martel
Department of Physical Therapy
University of Maryland Eastern Shore
Princess Anne, MD
DOI: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000139890.43497.B1
REFERENCES
1. ROTH, S. M., G. F. MARTEL, R. E. FERRELL, E. J. METTER, B. F.
HURLEY, and M. A. ROGERS. Myostatin gene expression is
reduced in humans with heavy-resistance strength training: a
brief communication. Exp. Biol. Med. 228:706 –709, 2003.
2. ROTH, S. M., G. F. MARTEL, F. M. IVEY, et al. Ultrastructural
muscle damage in young vs. older men after high-volume,
heavy-resistance strength training. J. Appl. Physiol. 86:1833–
1840, 1999.
3. ROTH, S. M., and S. WALSH. Myostatin: a therapeutic target for
skeletal muscle wasting. Curr. Opin. Clin. Nutr. Metab. Care.
7:259 –263, 2004.
4. TRACY, B. L., F. M. IVEY, D. E. HURLBUT, et al. Muscle quality.
II. Effects of strength training in 65- to 75-yr-old men and
women. J. Appl. Physiol. 86:195–201, 1999.
5. WILLOUGHBY, D. S. Effects of heavy resistance training on
myostatin mRNA and protein expression. Med. Sci. Sports
Exerc. 36:574 –582, 2004.
RESPONSE
Dear Editor-in-Chief:
This response is to the letter written by Roth, Rogers,
Hurley, and Martel in regard to my recently published
article (2). My intent was not to be openly critical of their
recent study (1) because I found it to be a very intriguing
study.
Apparently I was incorrect in assuming that the Keiser
K-300 pneumatic resistance training equipment employed in
the study of Roth et al. did not involve an eccentric com-
ponent. This was based on my prior use of the Keiser
equipment several years ago and my professional impres-
sion that there was an apparent absence or, albeit, lack of a
significant eccentric component. This issue of not having
eccentric contractions with the Keiser equipment was down-
played in the original draft of the manuscript but one of the
reviewers was quite insistent about the absence of the ec-
centric contractions with this type of equipment. I therefore
consulted various sources regarding this equipment and was
unable to find any conclusive information regarding the
incorporation of eccentric contractions with the K-300. I
also consulted several colleagues involved in the strength
and conditioning profession and they agreed that there is
not a significant eccentric component involved with this
equipment.
Another issue that was involved with this apparent over-
sight is the fact that it is apparently difficult to actually
quantify a relative training workload, as can be done with
free weight or selectorized weight equipment; for example,
training with 80% of the 1RM, not to mention the fact that
the resistance on the Keiser equipment can be adjusted to
accommodate issues of fatigue during the actual repetition
which is not the case with the aforementioned. Therefore,
while the authors of this manuscript were forthcoming with
1656 Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine
their training methodologies, and the fact that the training
resistance was always set at a 5RM, it was somewhat dif-
ficult to determine the actual training intensity and volume.
This being the case, I openly apologize to Roth et al. for
my oversight and error in not accurately interpreting the
results of their study. In actuality, with this conversation, I
now find the mechanism(s) of myostatin expression in re-
sponse to weight training even more intriguing now that the
issue of the absence of eccentric contractions is apparently
moot. However, I do maintain my position that the Keiser
pneumatic training equipment is not typical of what most
athletes and others involved in resistance training would
usually employ. As such, it is important to determine the
effects of dynamic resistance training with free weight and
selectorized weight equipment. In regard to the GDF-8
(myostatin) antibody from Santa Cruz Biotechnology, we
used sc-6885, which is a goat polyclonal raised against a
peptide mapping at the amino terminus of GDF-8 of mouse
origin and displays specificity in humans for GDF-8 only.
Darryn Willoughby
Department of Health, Human Performance, and
Recreation
Baylor University
Waco, TX
DOI: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000139891.26983.BB
REFERENCES
1. ROTH, S., G. MARTEL, R. FERRELL, E. METTER, B. HURLEY, and
M. ROGERS. Myostatin gene expression is reduced in humans
with heavy-resistance strength training: a brief communication.
Exp. Biol. Med. 228:706 –709, 2003.
2. WILLOUGHBY, D. Effects of heavy resistance training on myo-
statin mRNA and protein expression. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.
36:574 –582, 2004.
http://www.acsm-msse.org