A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MUSCLE HYPERTROPHY RETENTION RATES ACHIEVED VIA VARIOUS TRAINING MODALITIES

УДК 612.76+796.8

Abstract

The present paper provides an analytical review of the structural and cellular mechanisms underlying muscle hypertrophy retention during training cessation (detraining). The study compares the sustainability of adaptations achieved through two primary models of hypertrophy: metabolic stress (sarcoplasmic) and mechanical tension (myofibrillar). A synthetic analysis of contemporary literature demonstrates that the "quality" of hypertrophy determines its retention index. It has been established that structural changes induced by high mechanical tension and eccentric training are highly robust and less susceptible to atrophy compared to the fluid and glycogen accumulation caused by metabolic stress. Additionally, the paper examines the cellular basis of "muscle memory," specifically the phenomenon of myonuclear retention under atrophic conditions, which facilitates rapid recovery upon retraining (reloading). Furthermore, the paper offers evidence-based practical recommendations regarding the "minimum effective dose" of exercise. Evidence indicates that training intensity, rather than volume, is the critical factor for maintaining hypertrophic gains; however, in older populations, adjustments to training volume are necessary due to "anabolic resistance." The findings of this review hold significant value for specialists in physical medicine and rehabilitation when designing rehabilitation protocols.

Аннотация

Настоящая работа представляет собой аналитический обзор, посвященный структурным и клеточным механизмам сохранения мышечной гипертрофии в период прекращения тренировочного процесса (детренинга). В исследовании сравнивается устойчивость адаптаций, достигнутых с помощью двух основных моделей гипертрофии: метаболического стресса (саркоплазматическая) и механического напряжения (миофибриллярная). Синтетический анализ современных литературных данных показывает, что «качество» гипертрофии определяет показатель ее сохранения. Установлено, что структурные изменения, индуцированные высоким механическим напряжением и эксцентрическими тренировками, характеризуются высокой устойчивостью и в меньшей степени подвержены атрофии по сравнению с накоплением жидкости и гликогена, вызванным метаболическим стрессом. В работе также рассматриваются клеточные основы «мышечной памяти», в частности феномен сохранения миоядер в условиях атрофии, что обеспечивает быстрое восстановление при повторных нагрузках. Кроме того, в статье предлагаются научно обоснованные практические рекомендации относительно «минимальной эффективной дозы». Показано, что критическим фактором для сохранения результатов является интенсивность, а не объем нагрузки, однако для пожилой популяции из-за явления «анаболической резистентности» требуется корректировка тренировочного объема. Результаты данного обзора представляют значительную практическую ценность для специалистов в области физической медицины и реабилитации при разработке реабилитационных протоколов.

Keywords: Muscle hypertrophy, detraining, muscle memory, myonuclei, sarcopenia, mechanical tension.

Ключевые слова: Мышечная гипертрофия, детренинг, мышечная память, миоядра, саркопения, механическое напряжение.

Introduction

Skeletal muscle hypertrophy is considered not only as a means of improving physical capabilities in terms of achieving athletic results, but also as a fundamental component of metabolic health and functional independence for the general population. The high plasticity of muscle tissue allows it to adapt to various types of mechanical stimuli, however, recent studies reveal that the nature of adaptation and its subsequent stability are significantly dependent on the applied training methodology. Traditionally, two main mechanisms are distinguished for inducing muscle hypertrophy: mechanical tension, which is achieved by high-intensity loading (using heavy exercise weights), and metabolic stress, which is associated with methods of high volume, prolonged time under tension, and blood flow restriction. Despite the fact that both approaches can cause an increase in muscle cross-section, there is a reasonable assumption that the "muscle mass" obtained in these ways is structurally and qualitatively different.

The main subject of the present paper is the analysis of the retention rate of the results achieved by the mentioned methods under the conditions of training cessation or forced pause (detraining). In sports practice and rehabilitation, there are frequent cases (trauma, seasonal break, post-operative period) when it is necessary to maximally retain the achieved results against the background of minimal loading. Based on this, it is critically important to determine which training strategy creates a more "solid" biological foundation, which ensures the creation of a biological foundation with high resistance to atrophic processes. The paper discusses the structural heterogeneity of hypertrophy, the cellular mechanisms of "muscle memory", and age factors, which allows us to develop evidence-based recommendations for the long-term retention of results.

Research Purpose

The purpose of the present paper is to conduct an in-depth analysis of the structural and cellular mechanisms underlying muscle hypertrophy retention under conditions of training cessation (detraining). The study aims to compare the sustainability of adaptation models achieved through metabolic stress versus mechanical tension, and to investigate the physiological foundations of "muscle memory" in the context of atrophy. Based on this analysis, the ultimate objective of the paper is to optimize rehabilitation protocols for application in physical medicine and rehabilitation practice, and to develop evidence-based practical recommendations regarding the "minimum effective dose" for maintaining training gains, taking into account age-related factors and anabolic resistance.

Research Methods

The present study employed a narrative and analytical review methodology aimed at the in-depth exploration and interpretation of the physiological mechanisms underlying muscle hypertrophy. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across international scientific databases, including PubMed, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and Web of Science. The search strategy involved the utilization of the following keywords and their combinations: "Skeletal muscle hypertrophy," "Muscle memory mechanisms," "Detraining physiology," "Myonuclear domain theory," "Sarcoplasmic vs Myofibrillar hypertrophy," and "Eccentric training adaptations." For the analysis, relevant scientific papers published between database inception and 2025 were selected and reviewed. While priority was historically given to foundational studies (e.g., Gundersen, MacDougall), the review integrates contemporary experimental research (up to 2025) investigating cellular and molecular mechanisms.

Data Analysis.  The paper utilized a synthetic analysis approach, comparing diverse experimental data (e.g., MRI scans, muscle biopsies, and strength tests) to establish the correlation between training modalities (mechanical tension, metabolic stress) and the sustainability of the achieved outcomes.

Literature Review

The debate within the academic community regarding the nature of hypertrophy has entered a new phase following the foundational studies conducted by Haun et al. [18] and Roberts et al. [30], which challenged the dogma of hypertrophic homogeneity. In the study by Haun and colleagues [18], known as the "Auburn Study," subjects performed an extremely high-volume training program (30+ sets per muscle per week). The results of the study revealed a paradoxical picture: although magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound examinations recorded a significant increase in muscle cross-sectional area, muscle biopsy analysis showed a decrease in the concentration of myofibrillar proteins (actin and myosin). Based on these data, Roberts et al. [30] formulated the theory of "sarcoplasmic hypertrophy." According to their explanation, under conditions of high metabolic stress, the muscle cell is forced to increase its energy reserves (glycogen), mitochondrial network, and intracellular fluid (sarcoplasm) in order to cope with the load. This causes an increase in the diameter of the muscle fiber without an addition of contractile elements, which creates a "dilution" effect of myofibrils at the cytological level. Consequently, this type of hypertrophy is structurally less dense and is more highly dependent on the current status of fluid and energy substrates.

This theory also resonates with earlier, classical studies. For example, Tesch [38] compared bodybuilders and weightlifters. He found that bodybuilders, who traditionally train with high volume, exhibited lower mitochondrial density and fewer contractile proteins per unit of muscle volume compared to weightlifters, indicating that hypertrophy can be driven by the expansion of non-contractile elements. Furthermore, Meijer et al. [23] investigated the "specific force" of muscle fibers (force divided by cross-sectional area). They demonstrated that during sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, the increase in strength often lags behind the increase in volume, which once again confirms the phenomenon of decreased myofibrillar density, or the "dilution" effect. These data are critical for understanding why a "large muscle" might be less functional and less resistant to detraining.

Conversely, Vann et al. [40] and Schoenfeld et al. [32] indicate in their papers that hypertrophy induced by mechanical tension (heavy weights, low/moderate volume) is characterized by a high rate of myofibrillar protein synthesis. This line of research is further expanded by Campos et al. [4], who investigated muscle fiber adaptation across different repetition ranges. The study confirmed that low-repetition and high-load training induces maximal hypertrophy of Type IIb (fast-twitch) fibers and an increase in myofibrillar density, whereas a high number of repetitions (metabolic stress) predominantly stimulates mitochondrial biogenesis and has less impact on the robustness of the contractile apparatus. Furthermore, Franchi et al. [15] and Aagaard et al. [1] point out that mechanical loading leads to changes in muscle architecture. This aligns with the study by Earp et al. [11], according to which training with heavy weights increases the fiber pennation angle, allowing more contractile material to be accommodated in less space, thereby creating a "denser" structure. Structural robustness is also addressed by Folland & Williams [14], who note that high mechanical tension induces not only muscle fiber growth but also the thickening of connective tissue and tendons, which increases the efficiency of force transmission and creates a more stable morphological base that is less susceptible to rapid volume fluctuations during detraining. Finally, Wernbom et al. [41], in their comprehensive review, conclude that despite the importance of training volume, the rate and quality of muscle cross-sectional area growth are maximal when mechanical tension is the dominant factor, which reduces the proportion of "false hypertrophy" (edema) in the overall outcome. MacDougall et al. [22] investigated the role of glycogen in muscle volume at an early stage. Their study showed that within the first week of ceasing intensive metabolic training, muscle glycogen concentration returns to baseline levels, which is accompanied by fluid loss and a significant reduction (up to 20-30%) in muscle volume. Based on these data, De Freitas et al. [8] consider sarcoplasmic hypertrophy as an adaptation that is less resistant to detraining. Damas et al. [6] investigated the dynamics of muscle growth during the first 10 weeks of initiating training. The authors discovered that the "growth" recorded by ultrasound examination in the initial stage (the first 3-4 weeks) was primarily driven by edema caused by muscle damage, rather than by actual protein accumulation. Phillips [27] notes in his review that metabolic stress induces stronger cellular swelling than mechanical tension, which creates the illusion of rapid mass loss during the initial phase of detraining. In the study of mechanisms underlying the retention of muscle hypertrophy, fundamental importance is attributed to the works of Gundersen [16] and Bruusgaard et al. [3]. The pre-existing "myonuclear domain" hypothesis posited that during atrophy, along with the reduction in cytoplasmic volume, the muscle also lost its nuclei. However, Bruusgaard utilized an innovative in vivo imaging method, thereby proving that even under conditions of extreme muscle mass loss, previously acquired myonuclei do not undergo apoptosis. The authors concluded that apoptosis affects only cytoplasmic components, while the nuclei remain as a "latent reserve." This means that the muscle possesses a biological "memory," which, upon the resumption of training, bypasses the lengthy process of nuclear proliferation and directly initiates protein synthesis. This theory is further reinforced by the study of Egner et al. [12], which utilized a model of testosterone-induced hypertrophy in mice. After the cessation of the drug, the muscles returned to their baseline size; however, the number of nuclei was maintained. Upon reloading, the group that possessed "pre-existing nuclei" restored muscle mass 36% faster than the control group. This finding is critical for understanding that any episode of hypertrophy (including temporary ones) leaves a robust cellular trace.

Figure 1. Dynamics of muscle fiber cross-sectional area (CSA) and myonuclear number during cycles of training, detraining, and retraining (Gundersen's model)

This effect in humans was corroborated by Kadi et al. [20]. They investigated powerlifters who had previously used anabolic steroids but, at the time of the study, had been "clean" for years and had ceased intensive training. Despite this, the myonuclear density and the number of satellite cells in their muscle fibers were statistically higher than in those who had never trained at high intensity. This is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that "muscle memory" is a long-lasting phenomenon in humans as well. The processes occurring at the cellular level are echoed by Psilander et al. [29], who investigated the gene expression response to repeated training. The study demonstrated that in previously trained muscle, mRNA transcription and anabolic signal transduction (the mTOR pathway) occur much more rapidly and efficiently than in untrained muscle, confirming that "memory" operates not only at the morphological level but also at the molecular level.

Despite this optimistic picture, Dungan et al. [10] introduce certain nuances. According to their analysis, unlike in murine models, extremely prolonged inactivity in humans may lead to a gradual decline in the number of nuclei; however, a substantial portion of the "reserve" is still preserved, which contributes to the deceleration of age-related sarcopenia. Snijders et al. [35], in their review, also emphasize the role of satellite cells, noting that their number increases during hypertrophy and remains elevated even after detraining, thereby facilitating future regeneration. The study by Seaborne et al. [33], titled "Human Skeletal Muscle Possesses an Epigenetic Memory of Hypertrophy," represents a turning point in the understanding of epigenetic memory. They investigated subjects across three phases: loading (7 weeks), detraining (7 weeks), and reloading (7 weeks). A genome-wide analysis revealed that during the initial hypertrophy, more than 17,000 CpG sites were activated. Crucially, following detraining, when muscle mass had returned to baseline levels, a significant portion of these sites remained active. This "molecular trace" encompassed genes responsible for protein synthesis and the structural integrity of the muscle. Sharples et al. [34] describe this phenomenon as an "epigenetic barcode." According to their theory, exercise induces modifications in the DNA methylation profile, rendering the cell more "sensitive" to future anabolic signals. This line of research is expanded by Turner et al. [39], who confirmed that these epigenetic changes are strictly specific to the type of loading. They demonstrated that resistance training induces changes in genes associated with growth factors (e.g., IGF-1 and mTOR pathways), which is not observed during endurance training.  Recent evidence extends this concept, demonstrating that the epigenetic 'memory' of skeletal muscle—specifically the retention of DNA hypomethylation—is a universal mechanism maintained even after months of detraining. A 2024 study by Pilotto et al. [28] confirmed that these preserved epigenetic profiles continue to enhance gene expression upon retraining, underscoring that the molecular trace remains robust regardless of the specific high-intensity training modality.  An even deeper mechanism is proposed by Murach et al. [24] through the so-called "chromatin accessibility" theory. According to their research, exercise induces the opening of the DNA helix in regions that are typically "closed." Interestingly, even during atrophy, these regions remain partially open, allowing transcription factors to instantaneously bind to DNA upon reloading and initiate protein synthesis without a latent period. When comparing different training protocols, special attention is given to the blood flow restriction (BFR) training method, which is considered a "pure model" of metabolic stress. Yasuda et al. [42] conducted a study comparing low-intensity training and traditional high-intensity training over a 6-week period, followed by a 6-week detraining period. The results showed that despite a similar hypertrophic response at the end of training, the rate of muscle mass loss during detraining was statistically higher in the low-intensity training group than in the high-intensity group. The authors explained that this indicates that hypertrophy achieved through metabolic stress is less "inert" at the structural level.

These results are explained by Loenneke et al. [21], who investigated acute fluid redistribution during low-intensity training. They established that in this case, more than 50% of the recorded increase in muscle cross-sectional area is attributed to interstitial and intracellular fluid (edema), which is caused by the occlusion of venous return and the accumulation of metabolites. Consequently, the "rapid regression" observed during detraining actually represents the restoration of fluid balance rather than atrophy.

Figure 2. Retention rates of muscle mass (CSA) and maximal strength (1RM) during the detraining period: a comparative analysis of eccentric and concentric training

However, Nielsen et al. [25] propose an interesting counter-argument. In their study, low-intensity training induced a significant increase in satellite cell proliferation (a 280% increase over 8 days). This means that despite rapid fluid loss, metabolic stress also leaves a robust biological trace (in the form of myonuclei), providing the potential for retention or recovery in the long term. The specificity of atrophy according to fiber types is explained by Hortobágyi et al. [19]. They discovered that during detraining, Type II (fast-twitch) fibers, which predominantly hypertrophy during heavy weight training, are more prone to decreasing in size than Type I (slow-twitch) fibers. This creates an interesting paradox: a muscle built with heavy weights may decrease in size more rapidly during absolute inactivity, yet its structural density and force-generating capacity still remain high. An in-depth analysis of the role of eccentric loading is found in the study by Coratella & Schena [5], Hather, B. M., et al [17], where they compared the effects of concentric-only and eccentric-only training on hypertrophy retention. The experimental design involved an identical training volume, albeit with different contraction modes. The results showed that during the detraining period, the eccentric group retained a significantly greater percentage of muscle mass and strength than the concentric group. The authors concluded that eccentric loading induces deeper structural remodeling, rendering the muscle resistant to rapid atrophy.

This mechanism is explained in detail by Franchi et al. [15], who compared muscle architectural changes. It was found that eccentric training induces longitudinal growth of the muscle fiber (the addition of sarcomeres in series) and an increase in muscle fascicle length, whereas concentric training predominantly increases the pennation angle (the addition of sarcomeres in parallel). Physiologically, sarcomeres added in series represent a more "robust" structural investment that is less susceptible to regression than a change in the pennation angle. This is corroborated by the systematic review by Douglas et al. [9] on chronic adaptations to eccentric contraction training. The authors indicate that eccentric loading induces specific micro-damage, which leads to a more potent and prolonged activation of satellite cells compared to concentric or metabolic training. Since traditional "pumping" and low-intensity training are often characterized by a reduced eccentric phase (fast tempo, low weight), they lack this critical mechanical stimulus, which dictates the relatively lower sustainability of the achieved gains during detraining. In parallel with this, Fatouros et al. [13] compared the effects of low- and high-intensity training in older men. The study demonstrated that during the detraining period, the high-intensity (heavy resistance) group maintained both muscle mass and strength parameters statistically significantly better. Ogasawara et al. [26] investigated the effects of periodic training (6 weeks of training, 3 weeks of break). Their data showed that a 3-week break did not lead to irreversible losses, and muscle mass was rapidly restored in the subsequent cycle. Bickel et al. [2] conducted one of the most extensive studies aimed at determining the "minimum effective dose" for maintaining achieved outcomes. The experimental design comprised two phases: a 16-week hypertrophic training period followed by a 32-week detraining/maintenance phase. The subjects, who were age-differentiated (young: 20–35 years, older adults: 60–75 years), were distributed into three subgroups: total inactivity, 1/3 volume (1 session per week, 3 sets), and 1/9 volume (1 session per week, 1 set). The results of the study revealed a significant difference between the age groups. In the young population, training with just one set per week (1/9 volume) ensured the complete retention of myofibrillar cross-sectional area and strength parameters for 8 months, indicating that the "maintenance cost" of muscle tissue is quite low at a young age. However, in older adults, this volume was insufficient to arrest atrophy, and they required a minimum of 3 sets once a week to maintain the results. The authors attribute this phenomenon to anabolic resistance, which, with advancing age, requires a more potent mechanical stimulus to activate protein synthesis.  These findings are expanded upon by Spiering et al. [36] in their systematic review. The authors concluded that the critical component in the maintenance phase is intensity (load/weight), and not frequency or volume. If an athlete reduces training frequency to 1-2 days per week but maintains high mechanical tension (heavy weight), hypertrophic adaptations are preserved. However, if intensity is reduced (e.g., using light weight, even with high repetitions), atrophy is inevitable. This is directly related to our primary hypothesis that mechanical stress is the main guarantor of structural integrity. This is also confirmed by the study of Rønnestad et al. [31] on elite cyclists. During the season, reducing the frequency of strength training to 1 session per week did not lead to a decrease in leg muscle cross-sectional area or a deterioration in strength parameters over a 12-week period, whereas complete cessation caused a sharp regression. Also of interest is the observation by Tavares et al. [37], in which training cessation and volume reduction were compared. They demonstrated that although volume reduction slows down atrophy, even in the case of complete detraining, a "partially atrophied" muscle retains a physiological advantage (myonuclei, neural pathways) compared to a completely untrained muscle.

Discussion

The synthetic analysis of the studies presented in the present review allows us to delineate fundamental regularities in the mechanisms underlying muscle hypertrophy retention.

Hypertrophy "Quality" and Retention Index. A critical analysis of existing data reveals that the retention rate of hypertrophy is directly proportional to its structural "quality," which can be explained by the bioenergetic cost of adaptation. Outcomes achieved through high metabolic stress (TUT), which largely rely on sarcoplasmic expansion and glycogen supercompensation, are characterized by high instability, as they represent an acute adaptation to energetic demands rather than a chronic structural change. From a bioenergetic perspective, the maintenance of glycogen and its associated fluid is a metabolically "expensive" process. When the stimulus is removed, the organism rapidly eliminates these excess energy reserves in order to restore homeostasis. Consequently, the sharp decrease in mass observed during the initial stage of detraining [22] actually represents the physiological normalization of hydration levels, rather than the pathological degradation of protein structures (atrophy). This creates a visual illusion of rapid muscle loss, although the functional units often remain intact. Conversely, myofibrillar hypertrophy induced by mechanical tension [15, 40] constitutes a more "inert" and stable system. The synthesis of contractile proteins and architectural changes represent a structural modification of the organism for force generation. The degradation of these structures is a considerably more complex and "protected" biochemical process. At the molecular level, recent mechanistic reviews of human studies emphasize that disuse-induced atrophy is characterized by a rapid and profound disruption in muscle protein balance, where diminished anabolic signaling (e.g., mTORC1 pathways) is accompanied by robust activation of proteolytic systems, rapidly dismantling loosely formed structures [7]. This is in contrast to glycogenolysis, which is activated within minutes or hours. Moreover, during mechanical hypertrophy, there is not only an increase in intracellular proteins but also a thickening of the extracellular matrix and costameres, which creates a kind of "physical corset." This connective tissue scaffold protects the muscle from rapid atrophy and ensures structural integrity even after the mechanical stimulus is removed. Thus, the "retention index" of hypertrophied muscle mass is naturally high in the case of myofibrillar hypertrophy, as it represents the "primary capital," the preservation of which is evolutionarily a higher priority for the organism from a survival standpoint than the storage of energy substrates.

Cellular Memory as a Universal Mechanism. A critical analysis of the studies by Gundersen [16] and Seaborne et al. [33] confirms that "muscle memory" constitutes a biological constant, although its quality depends on the nature of the initial stimulus. Despite the fact that the accumulation of myonuclei and epigenetic modification create a universal "insurance," the question arises: are all myonuclei equally effective? From a critical perspective, satellite cells activated by mechanical tension, which fuse with the fiber, undergo a more complex differentiation pathway than the proliferation induced by metabolic stress, which is often driven by an elevation in the hormonal background (IGF-1, growth hormone).

Figure 3. Dynamics of changes in muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) during the detraining period: a comparative analysis of mechanical tension and metabolic stress

However, the outcome—an increase in the number of nuclei—is present in both cases [21]. This means that "bio-banking" occurs at the cellular level: the muscle stores potential for future demands. At the epigenetic level, the hypomethylation "barcode" described by Seaborne [33] may not be identical for all types of training. Mechanical stress has the ability to leave a deeper trace on the genes responsible for cytoskeletal integrity, whereas metabolic stress may predominantly activate mitochondrial and capillary genes. Despite these nuances, the main conclusion remains unchanged: atrophy does not mean complete regression. It is a transition of the muscle into a "latent" or "dormant" state, in which the molecular mechanisms necessary for rehabilitation are preserved. This radically alters rehabilitation approaches: a patient with a training history does not start from zero, but rather "awakens" a pre-existing system.

The Importance of Methodology. Tension versus Volume. A comparative analysis of the studies by Yasuda et al. [42] and Bickel et al. [2] provides us with a critical methodological formula: the decisive factor in the maintenance phase is intensity, not volume. This seemingly simple conclusion is based on profound neurophysiological mechanisms. When the goal is to maintain hypertrophy with minimal effort (e.g., 1 session per week), it is essential to maintain high mechanical tension (heavy weight), even at a sharply reduced frequency. The reason for this lies in the principle of motor unit recruitment. High intensity (e.g., >80% 1RM) forces the nervous system to activate high-threshold motor units, which innervate Type II (fast-twitch) fibers. It is precisely these fibers that are most susceptible to atrophy during inactivity. If an athlete reduces the weight and increases repetitions (metabolic stimulus) during the maintenance period, they may fail to reach the threshold required for the stimulation of these critical fibers, especially when the training frequency is low. Furthermore, metabolic stress, as an anabolic signal, is acute and short-lived. It depends on the accumulation of metabolites at a specific moment. If the training frequency is reduced (e.g., once a week), this "metabolic impulse" is not frequent enough to maintain sarcoplasmic volume and glycogen reserves. Conversely, mechanical tension induces the deformation of mechanoreceptors located on the cell membrane, which activates the mTORC1 pathway for a more prolonged duration. Consequently, a single heavy, mechanically loaded set per week is more effective for preserving structural proteins than multiple light sets, as it provides a "vital" mechanical signal, without which the muscle initiates catabolism.

Age-Related Specificity and Anabolic Resistance. The analysis reveals that age is not merely a demographic variable, but rather a critical modulator of the physiology of muscle mass retention. The study by Bickel [2] demonstrates a significant difference: for young individuals, 1 session per week is sufficient, whereas older adults require a minimum of 3. The basis of this phenomenon is the so-called "anabolic resistance"—a condition in which the aging muscle loses its sensitivity to amino acids and mechanical stimuli. From a critical perspective, this means that activating protein synthesis in older adults requires a significantly stronger signal than in young individuals. If "maintenance training" for a young athlete might be a light warm-up, for an older adult the exact same load is perceived as "inactivity," because it fails to reach the high threshold for protein synthesis activation. An additional problem is the selective atrophy of Type II fibers. Sarcopenia primarily targets fast-twitch fibers. Since mechanical tension is the only way to preserve these fibers, reducing training intensity in older adults for the sake of "safety" often leads to the loss of the very structures they need the most (strength, speed, balance). This creates a rehabilitation paradox: the traditional "conservative" approach in older adults is often ineffective for atrophy prevention. This, in turn, necessitates a revision of protocols in favor of higher relative intensity in order to overcome the barrier of anabolic resistance.

Conclusion

Based on the literature and analysis presented in this paper, the following primary conclusions can be formulated, which hold practical value for both fitness and physical rehabilitation professionals:

1. The sustainability of hypertrophic adaptation depends on its structural nature. Hypertrophy achieved through metabolic stress is characterized by high instability, as a significant portion of it is attributed to sarcoplasmic expansion and hydration, which undergoes regression as soon as the stimulus dissipates. Conversely, myofibrillar hypertrophy achieved through high mechanical tension creates structural density and a connective tissue scaffold, which ensures the long-term retention of the outcome.

2. "Muscle memory" constitutes an irreversible biological asset. Regardless of the method (metabolic or mechanical) by which the initial hypertrophy was achieved, the myonuclei and epigenetic modifications accumulated during the training process are preserved even during the period of atrophy. This means that the loss of muscle mass is not absolute; it is a transition of the tissue into a "latent mode," where regenerative potential is preserved for rapid rehabilitation.

3. In the maintenance phase, intensity dominates over volume. To maintain the achieved results (especially in Type II fibers), it is critically important to preserve high mechanical tension, even at a sharply reduced frequency (1 session per week). Low-intensity loading of a metabolic nature fails to provide a sufficient neuromechanical stimulus for the prevention of atrophy in the long term.

4.  Age as a modifier. The pronounced "anabolic resistance" in older adults requires a higher minimum effective dose (at least 1/3 volume) and intensity than in young individuals. Rehabilitation strategies must take this factor into account in order to avoid the acceleration of sarcopenic processes during passive periods.

Based on clinical and practical objectives, if the priority is the maximal retention of acquired muscle mass and functional parameters under conditions of potential detraining (forced pause, rehabilitation), the following strategic approach is recommended:

Prioritizing Mechanical Hypertrophy. The primary portion of the training cycle should be devoted to high mechanical tension regimens (75-85% 1RM) to ensure an increase in myofibrillar density. Metabolic/"pumping" exercises should be supplementary rather than dominant.

The Golden Rule of Muscle Mass Retention. During a pause or a reduced schedule, it is critical to maintain intensity (heavy training weights), even at the expense of reducing volume (number of sets) by 60-90%. A single heavy session per week will protect the muscle from atrophy more effectively than three light sessions.

Eccentric Emphasis. The controlled execution of the eccentric (lowering) phase during exercise increases the accumulation of myonuclei and strengthens the connective tissue, which establishes a more robust foundation for future "muscle memory."

References:

1. Aagaard, P., Andersen, J. L., Leffers, A. M., Wagner, Å., Magnusson, S. P., Halkjær-Kristensen, J., & Dyhre-Poulsen, P. (2001). A mechanism for increased contractile strength of human pennate muscle in response to strength training: changes in muscle architecture. The Journal of Physiology, 534(2), 613-623. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7793.2001.t01-1-00613.x
2. Bickel, C. S., Cross, J. M., & Bamman, M. M. (2011). Exercise dosing to retain resistance training adaptations in young and older adults. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 43(7), 1177–1187. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e318207c15d
3. Bruusgaard, J. C., Johansen, I. B., Egner, I. M., Rana, Z. A., & Gundersen, K. (2010). Myonuclei acquired by overload exercise precede hypertrophy and are not lost on detraining. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(34), 15111-15116. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0913935107
4. Campos, G. E., Luecke, T. J., Wendeln, H. K., Toma, K., Hagerman, F. C., Murray, T. F., Ragg, K. E., Ratamess, N. A., Kraemer, W. J., & Staron, R. S. (2002). Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 88(1-2), 50–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-002-0681-6
5. Coratella, G., & Schena, F. (2016). Eccentric resistance training increases and retains maximal strength, muscle endurance, and hypertrophy in trained men. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 41(11), 1184–1189. https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2016-0321
6. Damas, F., Phillips, S.M., Libardi, C.A., Vechin, F.C., Lixandrão, M.E., Jannig, P.R., Costa, L.A.R., Bacurau, A.V., Snijders, T., Parise, G., Tricoli, V., Roschel, H. and Ugrinowitsch, C. (2016), Resistance training-induced changes in integrated myofibrillar protein synthesis are related to hypertrophy only after attenuation of muscle damage. J Physiol, 594: 5209-5222. https://doi.org/10.1113/JP272472
7. Deane, C. S., Piasecki, M., & Atherton, P. J. (2024). Skeletal muscle immobilisation-induced atrophy: mechanistic insights from human studies. Clinical science (London, England : 1979), 138(12), 741–756. https://doi.org/10.1042/CS20231198
8. de Freitas, M. C., Gerosa-Neto, J., Zanchi, N. E., Lira, F. S., & Rossi, F. E. (2017). Role of metabolic stress for enhancing muscle adaptations: Practical applications. World journal of methodology, 7(2), 46–54. https://doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v7.i2.46
9. Douglas, J., Pearson, S., Ross, A., & McGuigan, M. (2017). Chronic adaptations to eccentric training: A systematic review. Sports Medicine, 47(5), 917-941. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0628-4
10. Dungan, C. M., Murach, K. A., Frick, K. K., Jones, S. R., Crow, S. E., Englund, D. A., ... & Peterson, C. A. (2019). Elevated myonuclear density during skeletal muscle hypertrophy in response to training is reversed during detraining. American Journal of Physiology-Cell Physiology, 316(5), C649-C654. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpcell.00050.2019
11. Earp, J. E., Newton, R. U., Cormie, P., & Blazevich, A. J. (2015). Inhomogeneous Quadriceps Femoris Hypertrophy in Response to Strength and Power Training. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 47(11), 2389–2397. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000000669
12. Egner, I. M., Bruusgaard, J. C., Eftestøl, E., & Gundersen, K. (2013). A cellular memory mechanism aids overload hypertrophy in muscle long after an episodic stimulus. The Journal of Physiology, 591(24), 6221-6230. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2013.264457
13. Fatouros, I. G., Kambas, A., Katrabasas, I., Nikolaidis, K., Chatzinikolaou, A., Leontsini, D., & Taxildaris, K. (2005). Strength training and detraining effects on muscular strength, anaerobic power, and mobility of inactive older men are intensity dependent. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 39(10), 776-780. https://www.google.com/search?q=https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2005.019117
14. Folland, J.P., Williams, A.G. Morphological and Neurological Contributions to Increased Strength. Sports Med 37, 145–168 (2007). https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200737020-00004
15. Franchi, M. V., Reeves, N. D., & Narici, M. V. (2017). Skeletal muscle remodeling in response to eccentric vs. concentric loading: morphological, molecular, and metabolic adaptations. Frontiers in Physiology, 8, 447. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2017.00447
16. Gundersen, K. (2016). Muscle memory and a new cellular model for muscle atrophy and hypertrophy. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 219(2), 235-242. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.124495
17. Hather, B. M., Tesch, P. A., Buchanan, P., & Dudley, G. A. (1991). Influence of eccentric actions on skeletal muscle adaptations to resistance training. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica, 143(2), 177-185. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-1716.1991.tb09219.x
18. Haun, C. T., Vann, C. G., Roberts, B. M., Vigotsky, A. D., Schoenfeld, B. J., & Roberts, M. D. (2019). A critical evaluation of the biological construct skeletal muscle hypertrophy: size matters but so does the measurement. Frontiers in Physiology, 10, 247. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2019.00247
19. Hortobágyi, T., Dempsey, L., Fraser, D., Zheng, D., Hamilton, G., Lambert, J., & Dohm, L. (2000). Changes in muscle strength, muscle fiber size and myofibrillar gene expression after immobilization and retraining in humans. The Journal of Physiology, 524(Pt 1), 293–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7793.2000.00293.x
20. Kadi, F., Charifi, N., Denis, C. and Lexell, J. (2004), Satellite cells and myonuclei in young and elderly women and men. Muscle Nerve, 29: 120-127. https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.10510
21. Loenneke, J. P., Fahs, C. A., Rossow, L. M., Abe, T., & Bemben, M. G. (2012). The anabolic benefits of venous blood flow restriction training may be induced by muscle cell swelling. Medical Hypotheses, 78(1), 151-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2011.10.014
22. MacDougall, J. D., Sale, D. G., Elder, G. C., & Sutton, J. R. (1982). Muscle ultrastructural characteristics of elite powerlifters and bodybuilders. European journal of applied physiology and occupational physiology, 48(1), 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00421171
23. Meijer, J. P., Jaspers, R. T., Rittweger, J., Seynnes, O. R., Kamandulis, S., Brazaitis, M., ... & Degens, H. (2015). Single muscle fibre contractile properties differ between bodybuilders, power athletes and control subjects. Experimental Physiology, 100(11), 1331-1341. https://doi.org/10.1113/EP085267
24. Murach, K. A., Mobley, C. B., Zdunek, C. J., Frick, K. K., Jones, S. R., McCarthy, J. J., Peterson, C. A., & Dungan, C. M. (2020). Muscle memory: myonuclear accretion, maintenance, morphology, and miRNA levels with training and detraining in adult mice. Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle, 11(6), 1705–1722. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.12617
25. Nielsen, J. L., Aagaard, P., Bech, R. D., Nygaard, T., Hvid, L. G., Wernbom, M., ... & Frandsen, U. (2012). Proliferation of myogenic stem cells in human skeletal muscle in response to low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction. The Journal of Physiology, 590(17), 4351-4361. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2012.237008
26. Ogasawara, R., Yasuda, T., Ishii, N., & Abe, T. (2013). Comparison of muscle hypertrophy following 6-month of continuous and periodic strength training. European journal of applied physiology, 113(4), 975–985. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-012-2511-9
27. Phillips, S. M. (2014). A brief review of critical processes in exercise-induced muscular hypertrophy. Sports Medicine, 44(Suppl 1), 71-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-014-0152-3
28.  Pilotto, A. M., Turner, D. C., Mazzolari, R., Crea, E., Brocca, L., Pellegrino, M. A., Miotti, D., Bottinelli, R., Sharples, A. P., & Porcelli, S. (2025). Human skeletal muscle possesses an epigenetic memory of high-intensity interval training. American journal of physiology. Cell physiology, 328(1), C258–C272. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpcell.00423.2024
29. Psilander, N., Eftestøl, E., Cumming, K. T., Juvkam, I., Ekblom, M. M., Sunding, K., Wernbom, M., Holmberg, H. C., Ekblom, B., Bruusgaard, J. C., Raastad, T., & Gundersen, K. (2019). Effects of training, detraining, and retraining on strength, hypertrophy, and myonuclear number in human skeletal muscle. Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985), 126(6), 1636–1645. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00917.2018
30. Roberts, M. D., Haun, C. T., Vann, C. G., Osburn, S. C., & Young, K. C. (2020). Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy in skeletal muscle: A scientific "unicorn" or resistance training adaptation? Frontiers in Physiology, 11, 816. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2020.00816
31. Rønnestad, B. R., Nymark, B. S., & Raastad, T. (2011). Effects of in-season strength maintenance training frequency in professional soccer players. Journal of strength and conditioning research, 25(10), 2653–2660. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e31822dcd96
32. Schoenfeld, B. J. (2010). The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their application to resistance training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(10), 2857-2872. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181e840f3
33. Seaborne, R. A., Strauss, J., Cocks, M., Shepherd, S., O'Brien, T. D., van Someren, K. A., ... & Sharples, A. P. (2018). Human skeletal muscle possesses an epigenetic memory of hypertrophy. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 1898. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-20287-3
34. Sharples, A. P., Stewart, C. E., & Seaborne, R. A. (2016). Does skeletal muscle have an 'epi'-memory? The role of epigenetics in nutritional programming, metabolic disease, aging and exercise. Aging cell, 15(4), 603–616. https://doi.org/10.1111/acel.12486
35. Snijders, T., Aussieker, T., Holwerda, A., Parise, G., van Loon, L. J. C., & Verdijk, L. B. (2020). The concept of skeletal muscle memory: Evidence from animal and human studies. Acta physiologica (Oxford, England), 229(3), e13465. https://doi.org/10.1111/apha.13465
36. Spiering, Barry & Clark, Brian & Schoenfeld, Brad & Foulis, Stephen & Pasiakos, Stefan. (2022). Maximizing Strength: The Stimuli and Mediators of Strength Gains and Their Application to Training and Rehabilitation. Journal of strength and conditioning research. Publish Ahead of Print. 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004390.
37. Tavares, L. D., de Souza, E. O., Ugrinowitsch, C., Laurentino, G. C., Roschel, H., Aihara, A. Y., Cardoso, F. N., & Tricoli, V. (2017). Effects of different strength training frequencies during reduced training period on strength and muscle cross-sectional area. European journal of sport science, 17(6), 665–672. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2017.1298673
38. Tesch P. A. (1988). Skeletal muscle adaptations consequent to long-term heavy resistance exercise. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 20(5 Suppl), S132–S134. https://doi.org/10.1249/00005768-198810001-00008
39. Turner, D. C., Seaborne, R. A., & Sharples, A. P. (2019). Comparative transcriptome and methylome analysis in human skeletal muscle anabolism, hypertrophy and epigenetic memory. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 4251. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-40787-0
40. Vann, C. G., Roberson, P. A., Osburn, S. C., Mumford, P. W., Romero, M. A., Fox, C. D., Moore, J. H., Haun, C. T., Beck, D. T., Moon, J. R., Kavazis, A. N., Young, K. C., Badisa, V. L. D., Mwashote, B. M., Ibeanusi, V., Singh, R. K., & Roberts, M. D. (2020). Skeletal Muscle Myofibrillar Protein Abundance Is Higher in Resistance-Trained Men, and Aging in the Absence of Training May Have an Opposite Effect. Sports (Basel, Switzerland), 8(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports8010007
41. Wernbom, M., Augustsson, J., & Thomeé, R. (2007). The influence of frequency, intensity, volume and mode of strength training on whole muscle cross-sectional area in humans. Sports Medicine, 37(3), 225-264. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200737030-00004
42. Yasuda, T., Loenneke, J. P., Thiebaud, R. S., & Abe, T. (2015). Effects of detraining after blood flow-restricted low-intensity concentric or eccentric training on muscle size and strength. The journal of physiological sciences: JPS, 65(1), 139–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12576-014-0345-4