Search

Our previous study showed that daily six maximal eccentric contractions that were performed 5 days a week for 4 weeks increased maximal voluntary isometric (MVC‐ISO), concentric (MVC‐CON), and eccentric contraction (MVC‐ECC) strength of the elbow flexors and muscle thickness of biceps brachii and brachialis (MT) by 8.3 ± 4.9%, 11.1 ± 7.4%, 13.5 ± 11.5%, and 10.6 ± 5.1%, respectively. In the present study, we tested the hypothesis that the muscle strength and MT would still increase when the training intensity was reduced to 2/3 or 1/3 of the peak MVC‐ECC torque. Thirty‐six healthy young (19–24 years) adults who had not performed resistance training were placed to three groups (n = 12/group): 2/3MVC or 1/3MVC that performed six eccentric contractions with 2/3 or 1/3 MVC‐ECC load using a dumbbell 5 days a week for 4 weeks or control group that did not perform any training. Changes in the MVC‐ISO, MVC‐CON, MVC‐ECC torque, and MT before and after the 4‐week period were compared among the groups and with the group of the previous study in which six maximal eccentric contractions were performed 5 days a week for 4 weeks (MVC group; n = 12). The control and 1/3MVC groups showed no significant changes in any measures. Significant (p < 0.05) increases in MVC‐ISO (10.3 ± 11.4%), MVC‐CON (10.9 ± 9.5%), and MVC‐ECC (9.3 ± 8.8%) torque and MT (10.1 ± 9.2%) were observed for the 2/3MVC group. These changes were not significantly different from those of the MVC group. These results suggest that the 2/3‐intensity eccentric contractions with a dumbbell are as effective as maximal‐intensity isokinetic eccentric contractions to induce muscle adaptations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Our previous study showed that one 3-s maximal eccentric contraction a day performed 5 days a week for 4 weeks (5DW) increased maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) strength of the elbow flexors more than 10%. The present study examined whether muscle strength would still increase when the frequency was reduced to 2 days or 3 days per week. Methods: Twenty-six healthy young adults were recruited in the present study and placed to two groups (n = 13/group) based on the weekly frequency of the one 3-s maximal eccentric contraction for two (2DW) or three days per week (3DW) for 4 weeks. Changes in MVC-isometric, MVC-concentric, MVC-eccentric torque of the elbow flexors, and muscle thickness of biceps brachii and brachialis (MT) before and after the 4-week training were compared between 2DW and 3DW groups, and also compared to the 5DW group in the previous study. Results: The 2DW group showed no significant changes in MVC torque. Significant (P < 0.05) increases in MVC-concentric (2.5 ± 10.4%) and MVC-eccentric (3.9 ± 4.9%) torque were observed for the 3DW group, but the magnitude of the increase was smaller (P < 0.05) than that presented by the 5DW group (12.8 ± 9.6%, 12.2 ± 7.8%). No significant changes in MT were evident for any of the groups. Conclusion: These results suggest that at least three days a week are necessary for the one 3-s maximal eccentric contraction to be effective for increasing muscle strength, and more frequent sessions in a week (e.g., 5 days) appear to induce greater increases in muscle strength. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Changes in elbow flexion torque and biceps brachii electromyogram (EMG) activity over 30 repetitive maximal voluntary concentric-only (CON-only), eccentric-only (ECC-only), and alternative concentric and eccentric (CON-ECC, 30 concentric + 30 eccentric) contractions were examined to compare their muscle fatigue profiles. Methods: Fifteen healthy young men performed CON-only, ECC-only and CON-ECC in their maximal effort between 10° and 100° elbow flexion on an isokinetic dynamometer at an angular velocity of 30°/s with a 3-s rest between contractions in a randomised order with ≥ 3 days between conditions. Changes in torque and EMG over the repeated contractions and maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVC-ISO) torque with EMG before the first contraction and immediately after the last contraction were compared among conditions by two-way repeated measures analysis of variance. Results: The torque decreased (p < 0.01) from the first to 30th contraction in CON-only (− 49.5 ± 11.0%), ECC-only (− 32.2 ± 7.4%), and concentric (− 62.3 ± 8.7%) as well as eccentric phase (− 58.9 ± 9.3%) in CON-ECC (− 46.0 ± 12.3% overall). The magnitude of the decrease in the torque was greater (p < 0.01) for the CON-only than ECC-only, and the concentric than an eccentric phase in the CON-ECC. However, MVC-ISO torque decreased (p < 0.01) similarly after CON-only (− 42.9 ± 13.8%) and ECC-only (− 40.1 ± 9.2%), which was smaller (p < 0.01) than CON-ECC (− 56.8 ± 9.2%). EMG over contractions decreased (p < 0.01) for all conditions similarly from the first to the last contraction (− 28.5 ± 26.8%), and EMG in MVC-ISO also decreased similarly for all conditions (− 24.7 ± 35.8%). Conclusion: These results suggest greater fatigue resistance in repetitive maximal eccentric than concentric contractions, but the fatigue assessed by MVC-ISO does not show it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study compared concentric–eccentric coupled (CON-ECC), concentric-only (CON), and eccentric-only (ECC) resistance training of the elbow flexors for their effects on muscle strength and hypertrophy. Methods: Non-resistance-trained young adults were assigned to one of the four groups: CON-ECC (n = 14), CON (n = 14) and ECC (n = 14) training groups, and a control group (n = 11) that had measurements only. The training group participants performed dominant arm elbow flexor resistance training in extended elbow joint angles (0°–50°) twice a week for 5 weeks. The total training volume (dumbbell weight × number of contractions) in CON-ECC (5745 ± 1020 kg) was double of that in CON (2930 ± 859 kg) and ECC (3035 ± 844 kg), because 3 sets of 10 contractions were performed for both directions in CON-ECC. Maximum voluntary isometric (MVC-ISO), concentric (MVC-CON), and eccentric contraction (MVC-ECC) torque of the elbow flexors and biceps brachii and brachialis muscle thickness (MT) were measured at baseline, and 3–9 days post-last training session. Results: No significant changes in any measures were evident for the control group. The CON-ECC and ECC groups showed increases (P < 0.05) in MVC-ISO (12.0 ± 15.7% and 11.3 ± 10.8%, respectively) and MVC-ECC torque (12.5 ± 18.3%, 16.2 ± 11.0%) similarly. Increases in MVC-CON torque (P < 0.05) were evident for the CON-ECC (17.5 ± 13.5%), CON (10.5 ± 12.8%), and ECC (14.2 ± 10.4%) groups without a significant difference among groups. MT increased (P < 0.01) after CON-ECC (10.6 ± 5.4%) and ECC (9.7 ± 7.2%) similarly, but not significantly after CON (2.5 ± 4.8%). Conclusions: ECC training increased muscle strength and thickness similarly to CON-ECC training, despite the half training volume, suggesting that concentric contractions contributed little to the training effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our previous study found that one maximal voluntary eccentric contraction (MVC‐ECC) performed daily for 5 days a week for 4 weeks increased MVC‐ECC, isometric (MVC‐ISO), and concentric contraction (MVC‐CON) torque of the elbow flexors more than 10%. The present study investigated the effects of six maximal voluntary eccentric contractions on the MVC torques and biceps brachii and brachialis muscle thickness (MT). Thirty‐six healthy young adults were placed to one of the three groups (N = 12 per group); the 6 × 1 group that performed one set of six contractions once a week, the 6 × 5 group that performed one set of six contractions a day for 5 days a week, and the 30 × 1 group that performed five sets of six contractions a day in a week. The training duration was 4 weeks for all groups, and changes in MVC‐ECC, MVC‐CON and MVC‐ISO torque, and MT before and after the 4‐week training were compared among the groups. The 6 × 1 group did not show significant changes in muscle strength and MT. Significant (p < 0.05) increases in MVC‐ECC (13.5 ± 11.5%), MVC‐ISO (9.3 ± 5.5%), MVC‐CON torque (11.1 ± 7.4%) were evident for the 6 × 5 group only, and increases in MT were found for the 6 × 5 (10.4 ± 4.4%) and 30 × 1 (8.0 ± 5.8%) groups without a significant difference. These results suggest that performing a small number of eccentric contractions 5 days a week is more effective for increasing muscle strength than performing a larger volume of eccentric contractions once a week. However, it appears that training volume is a factor for muscle hypertrophy in a short‐term training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study compared a 3‐s isometric maximal voluntary contraction (MVC), concentric MVC and eccentric MVC of the elbow flexors performed daily for 5 days a week for 4 weeks for changes in muscle strength and thickness. Young sedentary individuals were assigned to one of three training groups (n = 13 per group) that performed either 3‐s isometric, concentric, or eccentric MVC once a day for 20 days, or to a control group (n = 10) that had measurements without training. The participants in the isometric group performed isometric MVC at 55° (0.96 rad) elbow flexion, and those in the concentric or eccentric group performed concentric MVC or eccentric MVC between 10° (0.17 rad) and 100° (1.75 rad) elbow flexion at 30°/s (0.52 rad/s) on an isokinetic dynamometer. MVC isometric torque at 20° (0.35 rad), 55° (0.96 rad), and 90° (1.57 rad) elbow flexion, MVC concentric and eccentric torque at 30°/s (0.52 rad/s) and 180°/s (3.14 rad/s), and muscle thickness (MT) of biceps brachii and brachialis were measured before and several days after the 20th exercise session. The control group did not show any changes. The eccentric group showed increases (p < 0.01) in isometric (three angle average: 10.2 ± 6.4%), concentric (two velocity average: 12.8 ± 9.6%), and eccentric MVC torque (12.2 ± 7.8%). An increase (p < 0.05) was limited for isometric MVC torque (6.3 ± 6.0%) in the concentric group, and for eccentric MVC torque (7.2 ± 4.4%) in the isometric group. No significant changes in MT were evident for all groups. Performing one 3‐s MVC a day increased muscle strength, but eccentric MVC produced more potent effects than isometric or concentric MVC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study compared two unilateral arm curl resistance exercise protocols with a different starting and finishing elbow joint angle in the same ROM for changes in elbow flexors strength and muscle thickness of the trained and non-trained arms. Thirty-two non-resistance trained young adults were randomly assigned to one of the three groups: extended joint training (0°–50°; EXT, n = 12); flexed joint training (80°–130°; FLE, n = 12); and non-training control (n = 8). The exercise training was performed by the dominant arms twice a week for 5 weeks with gradual increases in the training volume over 10 training sessions, and the non-dominant (non-trained) arms were investigated for the cross-education effect. Maximal voluntary contraction torque of isometric (MVC-ISO), concentric (MVC-CON), and eccentric contractions (MVC-ECC), and thickness (MT) of biceps brachii and brachialis of the trained and non-trained arms were assessed at baseline and 4–8 days after the last training session. The control group did not show significant changes in any variables. Significant (P < 0.05) increases in MVC-ISO torque (16.2 ± 12.6%), MVC-CON torque (21.1 ± 24.4%), and MVC-ECC torque (19.6 ± 17.5%) of the trained arm were observed for the EXT group only. The magnitude of the increase in MT of the trained arm was greater (P < 0.05) for EXT (8.9 ± 3.9%) than FLE (3.4 ± 2.7%). The cross-education effect was evident for MVC-ISO (15.9 ± 14.8%) and MVC-CON (16.7 ± 20.0%) torque of the EXT group only. These results suggest that resistance training at the extended elbow joint induces greater muscle adaptations and cross-education effects than that at flexed elbow joint. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Unilateral resistance training increases the strength of the contralateral non-trained homologous muscles known as the cross-education effect. We tested the hypothesis that unilateral eccentric resistance training (ET) would induce greater and longer-lasting cross-education effect when compared with concentric resistance training (CT). Methods: Young (20–23 y) participants were allocated to ET (5 males, 4 females) or CT (5 males, 4 females) group that performed unilateral progressive ET or CT of the elbow flexors, twice a week for 5 weeks (10 sessions) followed by a 5-week detraining, and control group (7 males, 6 females) that did not perform any training. Maximum voluntary isometric contraction torque of the elbow flexors (MVIC), one-repetition maximum of concentric dumbbell curl (1-RM), and biceps brachii and brachialis muscle thickness (MT) were measured from the trained and non-trained arms before, several days after the last training session, and 5 weeks later. A ratio between the trained and non-trained arms for the change in MVIC or 1-RM from pre- to post-training (cross-body transfer ratio) was compared between ET and CT groups. Results: The control group did not show significant changes in any variables. Both ET and CT increased (P < 0.05) MVIC (22.5 ± 12.3 % vs. 26.0 ± 11.9 %) and 1-RM (28.8 ± 6.6 % vs. 35.4 ± 12.9 %) of the trained arm without a significant difference between groups. MVIC was maintained after detraining for ET but returned to the baseline for CT, and 1-RM was maintained after detraining for both ET and CT. For the non-trained arm, MVIC (22.7 ± 17.9 % vs. 12.2 ± 10.2 %) and 1-RM (19.9 ± 14.6 % vs. 24.0 ± 10.6 %) increased similarly (P > 0.05) after ET and CT, and MVIC returned to the baseline after detraining, but 1-RM was maintained for both groups. An increase (P < 0.05) in MT was found only after ET for the trained arm (7.1 ± 6.1 %). The cross-body transfer ratio for MVIC was greater (P < 0.05) for ET (90.9 ± 46.7 %) than CT (49.0 ± 30.0 %). Conclusions: These results did not support the hypothesis and showed similar changes in the most of the variables between ET and CT for the trained and non-trained arms, and strong cross-education effects on MVIC and 1-RM, but less detraining effect after ET than CT on MVIC of the trained arm. Trial registration: University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000044477; Jun 09, 2021). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]