Georgios Mavropalias1, Tomoko Koeda2, Oliver R Barley3, Wayne C K Poon3, Aiden J Fisher4, Anthony J Blazevich3, Kazunori Nosaka3. 1. School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, 270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, WA, 6027, Australia. georgios.mavropalias@gmail.com. 2. Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Nagoya Gakuin University, Nagoya, Japan. 3. School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, 270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, WA, 6027, Australia. 4. School of Science, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We compared high- and low-intensity eccentric cycling (ECC) with the same mechanical work for changes in muscle function and muscle soreness, and examined the changes after subsequent high-intensity ECC. METHODS: Twenty men performed either high-intensity ECC (1 min × 5 at 20% of peak power output: PPO) for two bouts separated by 2 weeks (H-H, n = 11), or low-intensity (4 min × 5 at 5% PPO) for the first and high-intensity ECC for the second bout (L-H, n = 9). Changes in indirect muscle damage markers were compared between groups and bouts. RESULTS: At 24 h after the first bout, both groups showed similar decreases in maximal isometric (70° knee angle, - 10.6 ± 11.8%) and isokinetic ( - 11.0 ± 8.2%) contraction torque of the knee extensors (KE), squat ( - 7.7 ± 10.4%) and counter-movement jump ( - 5.9 ± 8.4%) heights (p < 0.05). Changes in KE torque and jump height were smaller after the second than the first bout for both the groups (p < 0.05). Increases in plasma creatine kinase activity were small, and no significant changes in vastus lateralis or intermedius thickness nor ultrasound echo-intensity were observed. KE soreness with palpation was greater (p < 0.01) in H-H (peak: 4.2 ± 1.0) than L-H (1.4 ± 0.6) after the first bout, but greater in L-H (3.6 ± 0.9) than H-H (1.5 ± 0.5) after the second bout. This was also found for muscle soreness with squat, KE stretch and gluteal palpation. CONCLUSION: The high- and low-intensity ECC with matched mechanical work induced similar decreases in muscle function, but DOMS was greater after high-intensity ECC, which may be due to greater extracellular matrix damage and inflammation.
PURPOSE: We compared high- and low-intensity eccentric cycling (ECC) with the same mechanical work for changes in muscle function and muscle soreness, and examined the changes after subsequent high-intensity ECC. METHODS: Twenty men performed either high-intensity ECC (1 min × 5 at 20% of peak power output: PPO) for two bouts separated by 2 weeks (H-H, n = 11), or low-intensity (4 min × 5 at 5% PPO) for the first and high-intensity ECC for the second bout (L-H, n = 9). Changes in indirect muscle damage markers were compared between groups and bouts. RESULTS: At 24 h after the first bout, both groups showed similar decreases in maximal isometric (70° knee angle, - 10.6 ± 11.8%) and isokinetic ( - 11.0 ± 8.2%) contraction torque of the knee extensors (KE), squat ( - 7.7 ± 10.4%) and counter-movement jump ( - 5.9 ± 8.4%) heights (p < 0.05). Changes in KE torque and jump height were smaller after the second than the first bout for both the groups (p < 0.05). Increases in plasma creatine kinase activity were small, and no significant changes in vastus lateralis or intermedius thickness nor ultrasound echo-intensity were observed. KE soreness with palpation was greater (p < 0.01) in H-H (peak: 4.2 ± 1.0) than L-H (1.4 ± 0.6) after the first bout, but greater in L-H (3.6 ± 0.9) than H-H (1.5 ± 0.5) after the second bout. This was also found for muscle soreness with squat, KE stretch and gluteal palpation. CONCLUSION: The high- and low-intensity ECC with matched mechanical work induced similar decreases in muscle function, but DOMS was greater after high-intensity ECC, which may be due to greater extracellular matrix damage and inflammation.
Authors: Georgios Mavropalias; Leslie Calapre; Michael Morici; Tomoko Koeda; Wayne C K Poon; Oliver R Barley; Elin Gray; Anthony J Blazevich; Kazunori Nosaka Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2021-01-13 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Masatoshi Nakamura; Shigeru Sato; Ryosuke Kiyono; Kaoru Yahata; Riku Yoshida; Kazuki Kasahara; Andreas Konrad Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-05-08 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Pornpimol Muanjai; Mantas Mickevicius; Audrius Snieckus; David A Jones; Pavelas Zachovajevas; Danguole Satkunskiene; Tomas Venckunas; Sigitas Kamandulis Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-23 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Masatoshi Nakamura; Kazuki Kasahara; Riku Yoshida; Kaoru Yahata; Shigeru Sato; Yuta Murakami; Kodai Aizawa; Andreas Konrad Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-05 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Tilman Engel; Anne Schraplau; Monique Wochatz; Stephan Kopinski; Dominik Sonnenburg; Anne Schomoeller; Lucie Risch; Hannes Kaplick; Frank Mayer Journal: Sports Med Int Open Date: 2022-03-19