Shigeru Sato1,2, Riku Yoshida1, Fu Murakoshi3, Yuto Sasaki3, Kaoru Yahata1, Kazuki Kasahara3, João Pedro Nunes4, Kazunori Nosaka5, Masatoshi Nakamura6. 1. Institute for Human Movement and Medical Sciences, Niigata University of Health and Welfare, Niigata, Japan. 2. Department of Rehabilitation, Matsumura General Hospital, Fukushima, Japan. 3. Department of Physical Therapy, Niigata University of Health and Welfare, Niigata, Japan. 4. Metabolism, Nutrition and Exercise Laboratory, Physical Education and Sport Center, Londrina State University, Londrina, Brazil. 5. Centre for Human Performance, School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, Australia. 6. Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Nishi Kyushu University, 4490-9 Ozaki, Kanzaki, Saga, 842-8585, Japan. nakamuramas@nisikyu-u.ac.jp.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Robert M Erskine; David A Jones; Alun G Williams; Claire E Stewart; Hans Degens Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2010-08-12 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Gerald T Mangine; Jay R Hoffman; Adam M Gonzalez; Jeremy R Townsend; Adam J Wells; Adam R Jajtner; Kyle S Beyer; Carleigh H Boone; Amelia A Miramonti; Ran Wang; Michael B LaMonica; David H Fukuda; Nicholas A Ratamess; Jeffrey R Stout Journal: Physiol Rep Date: 2015-08