-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The purpose of the study was to determine whether muscle contraction type (concentric [CON] or eccentric [ECC]) or loading (relative or absolute) has a greater impact on the perceptual and metabolic responses to conventional resistance exercise. Additionally, overall effort, pain sensations, and specific pain descriptors were compared with physiological responses. Seven healthy men (mean +/- SE, 25.71 +/- 2.17 years) with resistance training experience completed 2 one-repetition maximum (1-RM) trials. Subsequently, 2 randomized, counterbalanced, experimental sessions were completed consisting of 4 sets of 10 repetitions for 6 exercises. These sessions were performed at 65% CON 1-RM for CON only contractions or 65% CON 1-RM + 20% for ECC contractions. Blood samples were taken pre, post, and 15 minutes postexercise. OMNI-RPE (OMNI-Res), CR-10 pain rating, McGill pain ratings, and heart rate (HR) were recorded after each set. A significant time effect occurred for OMNI-Res, pain, lactate, and HR (p < 0.05). No significant pattern emerged for the contraction type, except for higher HR and lactate immediately postexercise for the CON contractions. Physiological measures were not significantly related to perceptual measures. When considered with previous data, muscle loading rather than contraction type plays the primary role in perceptual alterations of effort sense and pain. Practical applications of the investigation are that strength and conditioning professionals may be able to load CON and ECC contractions in a relative fashion by increasing loads in the ECC portion by 20% above the CON load that would result in comparable perceptual experiences.
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 07/2008; 22(4):1184-93. · 1.83 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The Physical Self-attribute Questionnaire was developed for use in conjunction with the Physical Self-perception Profile to model cognitive facets of perceived competence, certainty, importance, and discrepancy from ideal to each of the physical subdomains measured by the latter (Strength, Attractive Body, Condition, and Sport). To this end, two studies were conducted. Study 1 examined the factor structure, test-retest reliability, and validity of the questionnaire in a sample of 154 (28 men, 126 women) undergraduate health students. Reliability and validity were acceptable, and confirmatory factor analysis indicated good fit for a four-factor solution. In Study 2, the reliability, validity, and factor structure was again confirmed in a sample of 120 (83 men, 37 women) undergraduate students recruited from exercise classes. Results of these two studies suggest that the Physical Self-attribute Questionnaire is a viable tool to measure the underlying cognitive facets of subdomain-specific physical self-esteem.
Psychological Reports 05/2007; 100(2):627-42. · 0.44 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Although research has demonstrated that isokinetic eccentric (ECC) strength is 20-60% greater than isokinetic concentric (CON) strength, few data exist comparing these strength differences in standard dynamic resistance exercises. The purpose of the study was to determine the difference in maximal dynamic ECC and CON strength for 6 different resistance exercises in young men and women. Ten healthy young men (mean +/- SE, 25.30 +/- 1.34 years), and 10 healthy young women (mean +/- SE, 23.40 +/- 1.37 years) who were regular exercisers with resistance training experience participated in the study. Two sessions were performed to determine CON and ECC 1 repetitions maximum for latissimus pull-down (LTP), leg press (LP), bench press (BP), leg extension (LE), seated military press (MP), and leg curl (LC) exercises. Maximal ECC and maximal CON strength were determined on weight stack machines modified to isolate ECC and CON contractions using steel bars and pulleys such that only 1 type of contraction was performed. Within 2 weeks, participants returned and completed a retest trial in a counterbalanced fashioned. Test-retest reliability was excellent (r = 0.99) for all resistance exercise trials. Men demonstrated 20-60% greater ECC than CON strength (LTP = 32%, LP = 44%, BP = 40%, LE = 35%, MP = 49%, LC = 27%). Women's strength exceeded the proposed parameters for greater ECC strength in 4 exercises, p < 0.05 (LP = 66%, BP = 146%, MP = 161%, LC = 82%). The ECC/CON assessment could help coaches capitalize on muscle strength differences in young men and women during training to aid in program design and injury prevention and to enhance strength development.
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 02/2007; 21(1):34-40. · 1.83 Impact Factor
