ArticlePDF Available

Effects of Short-Term Dynamic Constant External Resistance Training and Subsequent Detraining on Strength of the Trained and Untrained Limbs: A Randomized Trial

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Short-term resistance training has been shown to increase isokinetic muscle strength and performance after only two to nine days of training. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of three days of unilateral dynamic constant external resistance (DCER) training and detraining on the strength of the trained and untrained legs. Nineteen men were randomly assigned to a DCER training group or a non-training control group. Subjects visited the laboratory eight times, the first visit was a familiarization session, the second visit was a pre-training assessment, the subsequent three visits were for training sessions (if assigned to the training group), and the last three visits were post-training assessments 1, 2, and 3 (i.e., 48 h, 1 week, and 2 weeks after the final training session). Strength increased in both trained and untrained limbs from pre- to post-training assessment 1 for the training group and remained elevated at post-training assessments 2 and 3 (p ≤ 0.05). No changes were observed in the control (p > 0.05). Possible strength gains from short-term resistance training have important implications in clinical rehabilitation settings, sports injury prevention, as well as other allied health fields such as physical therapy, occupational therapy, and athletic training.
Content may be subject to copyright.
sports
Article
Effects of Short-Term Dynamic Constant External
Resistance Training and Subsequent Detraining on
Strength of the Trained and Untrained Limbs:
A Randomized Trial
Pablo B. Costa 1, *, Trent J. Herda 2, , Ashley A. Herda 2 ,and Joel T. Cramer 3
1Exercise Physiology Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Fullerton,
CA 92831, USA
2Department of Health, Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045, USA;
t.herda@ku.edu (T.J.H.); a.herda@ku.edu (A.A.H.)
3Department of Nutrition and Health Sciences, University of Nebraska—Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA;
jcramer@unl.edu
*Correspondence: pcosta@fullerton.edu; Tel.: +1-657-278-4232; Fax: +1-657-278-2103
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Academic Editor: Eling de Bruin
Received: 14 December 2015; Accepted: 25 January 2016; Published: 27 January 2016
Abstract:
Short-term resistance training has been shown to increase isokinetic muscle strength and
performance after only two to nine days of training. The purpose of this study was to examine the
effects of three days of unilateral dynamic constant external resistance (DCER) training and detraining
on the strength of the trained and untrained legs. Nineteen men were randomly assigned to a DCER
training group or a non-training control group. Subjects visited the laboratory eight times, the first
visit was a familiarization session, the second visit was a pre-training assessment, the subsequent
three visits were for training sessions (if assigned to the training group), and the last three visits were
post-training assessments 1, 2, and 3 (i.e., 48 h, 1 week, and 2 weeks after the final training session).
Strength increased in both trained and untrained limbs from pre- to post-training assessment 1 for
the training group and remained elevated at post-training assessments 2 and 3 (p
ď
0.05). No changes
were observed in the control (p> 0.05). Possible strength gains from short-term resistance training
have important implications in clinical rehabilitation settings, sports injury prevention, as well as
other allied health fields such as physical therapy, occupational therapy, and athletic training.
Keywords:
training-induced; neuromuscular adaptation; isotonic; muscle mechanics; unilateral;
cross education
1. Introduction
Allied health professionals, such as physical therapists, occupational therapists, and athletic
trainers, may benefit from rapid increases in strength of a patient or athlete recovering from injury [
1
3
].
In theory, if an individual’s strength can be increased within a short period of time, an alternative to
more expensive and invasive medical procedures may be offered [
1
,
2
]. In addition, they are more likely
to comply with a rehabilitation program and perhaps decrease the risk of reinjury [
3
]. Consequently,
short-term resistance training has been shown to increase isokinetic muscle strength and performance
after only two to nine days of training [
1
,
2
,
4
,
5
]. This short time course for strength adaptations may
conveniently coincide with the commonly limited rehabilitation treatments due to minimal insurance
coverage or lack of compliance [
1
,
2
], or the time demands for return to play in sports. If patients do
not improve quickly, the risk of injury reoccurrence may increase [
1
]. This potential for short-term
Sports 2016,4, 7; doi:10.3390/sports4010007 www.mdpi.com/journal/sports
Sports 2016,4, 7 2 of 10
resistance training to improve muscular performance in a relatively shorter period of time would have
important implications for professionals working in rehabilitation settings [13].
Evidence has shown that improvements in muscle performance can be observed in a shorter
period than what is typically used in longer traditional training programs [
1
,
2
,
6
,
7
]. For example,
Prevost et al., (1999) investigated velocity-specific short-term training for two days and reported 22.1%
increases in peak torque (PT) at 270
˝¨
s
´1
after training at 270
˝¨
s
´1
, but no changes for training at
30 and 150
˝¨
s
´1
at the testing velocities of 30 and 150
˝¨
s
´1
[
4
]. Similarly, Coburn et al., (2006) compared
short-term resistance training effects after three sessions of slow- or fast-velocity and found that PT
increased for both training groups [
2
]. However, the slower velocity training group increased PT at
both velocities whereas PT increased only at the faster velocity for the faster velocity training group [
2
].
No changes in PT were observed for the control group and no changes in EMG amplitude were
reported for any of the groups at any of the velocities. The authors concluded three sessions of slow or
fast velocity isokinetic resistance training were sufficient to increase PT and the lack of EMG amplitude
changes suggested increases in leg extension PT were not caused by increases in muscle activation [
2
].
The principle of training called reversibility, or detraining, occurs when a complete cessation or
substantial reduction in training causes a partial or complete reversal of the adaptations induced
by training [
8
,
9
]. Detraining occurs after an individual discontinues a training program [
8
15
].
Most of the increases in strength found with resistance training are lost after several weeks of
detraining
[1014,16,17]
. However, Colliander and Tesch (1992) showed that a resistance training
program incorporating combined concentric and eccentric leg extension exercise retained more of the
novel strength gains than a concentric-only training program [
16
]. In addition, Farthing (2003) found
eccentric muscle action training elicited greater strength gains than concentric training [
18
]. Because
isokinetic muscle actions are typically concentric, it is unknown whether dynamic constant external
resistance (DCER) training, which uses coupled concentric and eccentric muscle actions, and isokinetic
training would affect detraining differently.
Isokinetic muscle actions have been traditionally used in rehabilitation and testing scenarios.
Several studies have examined the effects of isokinetic training on strength and/or muscle
cross-sectional area (CSA) [
1
,
2
,
4
,
5
] and isokinetic training allows development of maximum tension
throughout the range of motion [
7
]. However, DCER training would offer a more accessible, convenient,
cost-effective, and practical method of training, in addition to perhaps providing a greater stimulus to
elicit increases in strength [
19
]. Furthermore, no studies have investigated the effects of short term
resistance training on the contralateral untrained limb or on detraining. Therefore, the purpose of
this study was to examine the effects of three days of DCER training and subsequent detraining on
isokinetic on strength of the trained and untrained contralateral leg extensors during maximal leg
extension muscle actions.
2. Method
2.1. Subjects
Nineteen apparently healthy untrained men (mean
˘
SD age = 21.6
˘
3.4 years; body
mass = 77.9 ˘14.0 kg
;
height = 173.9 ˘4.1 cm
) were randomly assigned to a DCER training group or
control group. Participants were minimally active and naïve to the intent of the study. Individuals
with a history of chronic resistance training (>1 day/week) in the previous 12 months or those who
reported engaging in one or more lower-body resistance training exercise for six months prior to
the start of the study were excluded from participating. Prior to any testing, all subjects read and
signed an informed consent form and completed a health status questionnaire. Individuals with any
degenerative neuromuscular or joint disorders, or who sustained injuries distal to the waist within
six months prior to screening were also excluded from the study. Subjects were asked to maintain their
daily activities, but refrain from any exercise and/or nutritional supplements throughout the course of
the study. Individuals who had been taking nutritional supplements three months prior to screening
Sports 2016,4, 7 3 of 10
were not permitted to participate. This study was approved by the university’s Institutional Review
Board for the Protection of Human Subjects.
2.2. Research Design
A mixed factorial design was used to examine the effects of three days of short-term unilateral
resistance training and subsequent detraining on strength. Subjects visited the laboratory on eight
separate occasions. The first visit was a familiarization session, the second visit was a pre-training
assessment, the subsequent three visits were for training (if assigned to the training group), and the last
three visits were the post-training assessments (i.e., 48 h, 1 week, and 2 weeks after the final training
session). Pre-training assessments were performed 48 h prior to the start of training. Testing included
assessments of DCER strength. The training group performed DCER leg extension exercise with the
dominant leg in each of the three days of training whereas the control group did not take part in the
training intervention. After the three training sessions, post-training assessments were performed in
an identical manner to the pre-training assessments. In order to examine the time course of the effects
of training, post-training assessments were performed 48 h, 1 week, and 2 weeks after the final training
session. All pre- and post-training assessments were conducted at approximately the same time of day.
2.3. Dynamic Constant External Resistance Assessments
The maximal strength of the leg extensors were assessed using a DCER Nautilus leg extension
machine (Nautilus, Inc., Vancouver, WA, USA). The input axis of the machine was aligned with the
axis of rotation of the knee. The distal anterior portion of the leg superior to the ankle was used
as the load bearing point. Three submaximal warm-up sets of increasing tester-selected intensities
(i.e., 6–8, 3–5, and 1–2 repetitions) preceded the maximal strength attempt. When one attempt was
successful, the load was increased by 2–5 kg until a failed repetition occurred. A failed repetition was
defined as the inability to complete the full range of motion with the assigned load. During the tests,
loud verbal encouragement was provided by the investigator. Each subject was instructed to provide
maximal effort throughout the entire range of motion. The greatest load moved through a complete
leg extension range of motion was considered the one repetition maximum (1-RM). A 1-min rest was
allowed between each successive attempt [20,21].
2.4. Dynamic Constant External Resistance Training Protocol
After a rest period of 48 h following the pre-training assessment, the training group took part
in three DCER training sessions separated by 48 h. Participants in the training group performed
4 sets of 10 repetitions. Each training session began with ten warm-up repetitions at approximately
25% of the resistance used for the DCER training session. Approximately 80% of the 1-RM obtained
during the DCER maximal strength assessment was used as the starting load for the DCER group.
A 2-min rest period was allowed between each training set. Training load for the DCER group was
continually increased and adjusted by approximately 1.14 kg as each participant was able to tolerate
a given load with ease in order to ensure that the subject reached failure at approximately the 10th
repetition. All participants taking part in the DCER training intervention were supervised during all
training sessions.
2.5. Rating of Perceived Exertion
Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) was used to compare effort among the DCER training days
and sets [
22
26
]. Prior to the start of the study, subjects received instructions on how to use the RPE
scale to rate their perceived exertion. A Category-Ratio scale (CR-10) was used, where “0” is classified
as rest (no effort) and “10” is classified as maximal effort (most stressful exercise ever performed).
The CR-10 has been slightly modified to reflect American English (e.g., easy and hard instead of light
and strong, respectively) [
24
]. Subjects were asked to provide a number on the scale to rate their
overall effort immediately after each set was completed and after the entire training session. The RPE
Sports 2016,4, 7 4 of 10
assessments were conducted during each session by showing the scale and asking subjects “How
would you rate your effort?” and “How would you rate your entire workout?” immediately after each
set of training and after each training session, respectively. Therefore, in this study, “set RPE” was
defined as the RPE reported by the subject after each set, while “session RPE” was defined as the RPE
reported each day after the training session was completed.
2.6. Statistical Analyses
A three-way mixed factorial ANOVA (time (pre- vs. post-training assessment 1 vs. post-training
assessment 2 vs. post-training assessment 3)
ˆ
group (DCER vs. control)
ˆ
limb (trained vs. untrained)
was used to analyze the 1-RM data. A two-way repeated measured ANOVA (time [training session 1 vs.
training session 2 vs. training session 3)
ˆ
set (1 vs. 2vs. 3vs. 4)) was used to analyze RPE assessed
after each set during training. A one-way repeated measures ANOVA (time (training session 1 vs.
training session 2 vs. training session 3)) was used to analyze training session RPE. When appropriate,
follow-up analyses were performed using lower-order two- and one-way repeated measured ANOVAs,
and paired sample t-tests. An alpha level of p
ď
0.05 was considered statistically significant for all
comparisons. Predictive Analytics SoftWare (PASW) version 18.0.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was
used for all statistical analyses.
3. Results
3.1. Dynamic Constant External Resistance Assessments
Table 1contains the means (
˘
SE) for 1-RM strength in the trained and untrained leg. There was
no three-way interaction for time
ˆ
group
ˆ
limb (p= 0.11). However, there was a significant
two-way interaction for time
ˆ
group (p= 0.001). Post-hoc pairwise comparisons for the marginal
means indicated that 1-RM increased in both trained and untrained limbs from pre- to post-training
assessment 1 for the DCER group (p< 0.001) (Figure 1). There were no differences in 1-RM strength
for the DCER group among post-training assessments 1, 2, and 3 (p> 0.05) (Figure 2). No significant
changes were found for the control group (p> 0.05).
Table 1. Means (˘SE) for leg extension 1-RM.
Group Pre-Training
Assessment 1
Post-Training
Assessment 1
Post-Training
Assessment 2
Post-Training
Assessment 3
1-RM (kg)
DCER
(n= 10)
Trained 43.0 ˘3.0 52.6 ˘3.8 * 50.5 ˘3.5 * 50.2 ˘3.2 *
Untrained 41.9 ˘2.7 48.9 ˘4.2 * 48.9 ˘3.8 * 48.6 ˘3.5 *
CONT
(n= 9)
Trained 41.7 ˘2.2 41.9 ˘2.1 41.8 ˘1.9 42.7 ˘1.6
Untrained 41.9 ˘2.1 41.8 ˘1.9 41.7 ˘2.0 42.2 ˘1.7
Notes: 1-RM = 1 repetition maximum; DCER = dynamic constant external resistance; CONT = control. * Denotes
significant change from pre- to post-assessments.
3.2. Rating of Perceived Exertion
Table 2contains the means (
˘
SE) for set and session RPE from the training group. There was
no two-way interaction for time
ˆ
set for set RPE (p= 0.41). However, there was a significant main
effect for set (p< 0.001). Post-hoc pairwise comparisons for the marginal means (collapsed across time)
indicated a significant main effect for set RPE (p< 0.05). RPE increased significantly from the first until
the last set within each session (p< 0.05). For session RPE, there was no main effect for time (p= 0.55).
Sports 2016,4, 7 5 of 10
Sports2016,4,75of10
Figure1.Meansofpercentchangeforlegextension1RMforthetrained(A)anduntrained(B)legs.
*DenotessignificantdifferencefromthepretestfortheDCERgroup.DCER=dynamicconstant
externalresistance;CONT=control.
Figure2.Means(±SE)forlegextension1RMcollapsedacrosslimb.*Denotessignificantdifference
fromthepretestfortheDCERgroup.DCER=dynamicconstantexternalresistance;CONT=control.
Figure 1.
Means of percent change for leg extension 1-RM for the trained (
A
) and untrained (
B
) legs.
* Denotes significant difference from the pre-test for the DCER group. DCER = dynamic constant
external resistance; CONT = control.
Sports2016,4,75of10
Figure1.Meansofpercentchangeforlegextension1RMforthetrained(A)anduntrained(B)legs.
*DenotessignificantdifferencefromthepretestfortheDCERgroup.DCER=dynamicconstant
externalresistance;CONT=control.
Figure2.Means(±SE)forlegextension1RMcollapsedacrosslimb.*Denotessignificantdifference
fromthepretestfortheDCERgroup.DCER=dynamicconstantexternalresistance;CONT=control.
Figure 2.
Means (
˘
SE) for leg extension 1-RM collapsed across limb. * Denotes significant difference
from the pre-test for the DCER group. DCER = dynamic constant external resistance; CONT = control.
Sports 2016,4, 7 6 of 10
Table 2. Means (˘SE) for set and session rating of perceived exertion for the DCER group.
Training Session 1st Set 2nd Set 3rd Set 4th Set Session
Session 1 6.4 ˘0.54 7.3 ˘0.63 * 8.3 ˘0.45 * 8.6 ˘0.37 * 7.6 ˘0.48
Session 2 5.4 ˘0.37 6.9 ˘0.31 * 7.8 ˘0.29 * 8.6 ˘0.43 * 7.1 ˘0.35
Session 3 5.8 ˘0.33 6.9 ˘0.43 * 7.9 ˘0.50 * 8.5 ˘0.48 * 7.5 ˘0.40
Notes: DCER = dynamic constant external resistance. * Denotes significant change over sets within each
training session.
4. Discussion
Perhaps the most important finding of the present study was the increase in DCER strength
acquired by the training group. DCER strength increased from pre- to post-training assessment 1
in the trained and untrained legs for the DCER training group and remained elevated during
post-training assessments 2 and 3. To our knowledge, this was the first study to report DCER
strength gains with short-term resistance training while also considering the detraining period of two
weeks. These findings are in agreement with previous studies reporting PT increases after short-term
isokinetic training [
1
,
2
]. In addition, the DCER group retained the strength gains during post-training
assessments 2 and 3. That is, DCER strength remained elevated over a two-week period. Typical
increases in strength obtained in longer resistance training programs are diminished after several
weeks of detraining [
10
14
,
16
]. Colliander and Tesch (1992) compared the effects of resistance training
and detraining using concentric-only and combined concentric and eccentric muscle actions of the leg
extensors and reported that the group performing coupled concentric and eccentric muscle actions
had a greater overall increase in PT after training and detraining than the concentric-only group [
16
].
These authors suggested strength decreases observed during detraining are not likely due to atrophy,
but perhaps a reduction in neural drive or motor unit activation and hypothesized eccentric muscle
actions are capable of inducing greater motor unit activation than concentric muscle actions [
16
].
Thus, it was suggested a resistance training program incorporating combined concentric and eccentric
repetitions of leg extension can retain more of the obtained strength gains than the training program
with concentric-only repetitions [
16
]. Likewise, Farthing (2003) found eccentric-only muscle action
training elicited greater strength gains than concentric-only training [
18
]. Similarly, Knight et al., (2001)
suggested that isotonic muscle actions may be more effective at increasing torque because isokinetic
resistance is accommodating, hence, it decreases with fatigue [
19
]. These findings [
16
,
18
,
19
], along
with the findings of the current study may indicate an advantage of DCER over isokinetic resistance
training programs when conducted over a relatively short period of time.
For the DCER training group, despite training only one leg, strength increased on the contralateral
limb and was maintained over the two-week detraining period. Unilateral resistance training of a limb
can increase the strength of the contralateral limb through a concept termed cross-education [
27
].
Increases in strength of the contralateral, untrained limb, have been extensively reported in the
literature [
27
,
28
]. Possibly an important finding of the current study is that short-term resistance
training also elicited the cross-education effect. This has important implications for injury rehabilitation,
where in the initial period post-injury strength gains on an injured limb can conceivably be obtained
with short-term contralateral resistance training. Contralateral strength gains have been hypothesized
to be attributed to central neural adaptations (i.e., excitation of the cortex), increased motoneuron
output, and improved postural stabilization [
27
29
]. Accordingly, structural changes in the brain
have been reported after only four weeks of unilateral resistance training concomitant with strength
increases in trained and untrained limb [
30
]. In fact, strength gains may not be restricted to the
contralateral untrained muscle, but might be observed in the contralateral untrained antagonist
muscle [
31
]. Therefore, future studies should investigate the effects of short-term resistance training
on contralateral antagonist muscles.
Sports 2016,4, 7 7 of 10
Strength gains were also maintained during the two-week detraining period in the DCER group.
Although in the present study subjects were untrained, these findings were similar to those of
Hortobagyi et al., (1993), who found that two weeks of detraining of resistance-trained athletes
did not cause a significant decrease in maximal bench press, squat, isometric, or concentric isokinetic
strength [
32
]. Similarly, Shaver (1975) reported that recently acquired strength can be maintained in
both trained and untrained limb for up to one week [
33
]. To our knowledge, the current study is
the first to demonstrate short-term increases in strength can be maintained for a two-week period
and in untrained limbs. In contrast, other authors have suggested strength gains that have been
recently acquired may diminish faster than in strength-trained athletes [
9
,
33
]. Thus, the experience
with resistance training (novice vs. well-trained athletes) should be considered when interpreting the
results of a short-term resistance training program and its potential lasting effects.
The neuromuscular system undergoes numerous adaptations following a resistance training
program [
6
,
7
,
34
38
]. Short-term resistance training has been shown to increase muscle strength and
isokinetic performance after only a few days of training. Increases in muscular strength following
a resistance training program can be attributed to neural and hypertrophic factors [
6
,
34
37
,
39
].
Therefore, voluntary strength increases due to not only the CSA and quality of muscle mass but also
to the extent in which the muscle mass is able to activate [
39
]. In general, neural factors are believed
to account for most of the increases in strength in the early stages of a resistance training program,
whereas hypertrophic factors gradually become prevalent after several weeks of training [
6
,
36
,
38
42
].
Research suggests early adaptations to resistance training programs are related to improvements in
neuromuscular efficiency, which perhaps indicates an increased capacity to activate skeletal muscle
voluntarily [
1
,
2
,
4
,
7
,
42
]. Hence, initial improvements in strength and muscular performance reported
following short-term resistance training are generally attributed to neural adaptations rather than
muscle fiber hypertrophy [
6
,
7
]. However, the specific mechanisms of such adaptations in short-term
training are not fully understood [
2
]. For example, Akima et al., (1999) reported increases in PT after two
weeks of resistance training but no changes in muscle CSA or fiber area suggesting strength increases
occurred without muscle hypertrophy [
7
]. Similarly, Prevost et al., (1999) reported velocity-specific
increases in PT training at 270
˝¨
s
´1
after increases in PT after two days of isokinetic training but not
with training at 30 and 150
˝¨
s
´1
[
4
]. Because improvements were only seen in one velocity, and muscle
hypertrophy would most likely yield strength increases at the other velocities, investigators suggested
that neural adaptations play a major role in strength improvements which are specific to a training
velocity [
4
]. Beck et al., (2007) suggested that responses to training might be influenced by the number
of training sessions, training volume, and muscle(s) being tested [
3
]. Nevertheless, Akima et al., (1999)
and Costa et al., (2013) suggested future studies should investigate the precise mechanisms underlying
strength gains obtained with short-term resistance training [7,43].
The results revealed there were no differences in RPE as acknowledged by the subjects among the
DCER training sessions. However, RPE increased from the first to the fourth set within each training
session. These results are similar to those found by Egan et al., (2006), who reported mean session RPE
values of 7.3 for six sets of six repetitions of traditional resistance training using squats at an intensity
of 80% of 1-RM [
22
]. Likewise, Sweet et al., (2004) reported mean RPE values between 6.8 and 8.2 for
70 and 90% of leg press 1-RM, respectively [
23
]. Thus, perceived effort from a short-term resistance
training program in the current study was similar to previous studies and was not lower because of
the shorter training program duration.
5. Conclusions
The primary finding of this study was that DCER strength increased in the trained and untrained
limbs with three days of contralateral training. This has important implications for injury rehabilitation,
where in the initial period post-injury, strength gains on an injured limb can possibly be obtained
with short-term resistance training. Furthermore, research has shown the feasibility and benefits
of preoperative resistance training prior to surgical intervention to decrease the odds of inpatient
Sports 2016,4, 7 8 of 10
rehabilitation, reduce the length of hospital stay, and promote overall postoperative recovery [
44
47
].
It is believed the increases were due to an unidentified factor because of strength gains observed
in the untrained limb after DCER resistance training. Future studies should investigate the precise
physiological components responsible for short-term contralateral strength gains. The findings of
the current study may indicate an advantage of DCER over isokinetic resistance training programs
when conducted over a relatively short period of time. These findings have important implications in
clinical rehabilitation settings, sports injury prevention, as well as in other allied health fields such
as physical therapy, occupational therapy, and athletic training. To our knowledge, the current study
is the first to demonstrate recently-acquired strength can be maintained for a two-week period in
untrained limbs. Therefore, future studies should examine the effects of short-term resistance training
on injury prevention and rehabilitation.
Author Contributions:
Pablo B. Costa was involved in the study concept and design, and was the primary
manuscript writer, and carried out data acquisition, data analysis, and data interpretation. Trent J. Herda and
Ashley A. Herda were significant contributors to data acquisition, read and approved the final manuscript, and
were manuscript reviewers/revisers. Joel T. Cramer was the primary manuscript reviewer/reviser, a substantial
contributor to concept and design, contributed to data analysis and interpretation, and was involved in
manuscript revision.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Cramer, J.T.; Stout, J.R.; Culbertson, J.Y.; Egan, A.D. Effects of creatine supplementation and three days of
resistance training on muscle strength, power output, and neuromuscular function. J. Strength Cond. Res.
2007,21, 668–677. [PubMed]
2.
Coburn, J.W.; Housh, T.J.; Malek, M.H.; Weir, J.P.; Cramer, J.T.; Beck, T.W.; Johnson, G.O. Neuromuscular
responses to three days of velocity-specific isokinetic training. J. Strength Cond. Res.
2006
,20, 892–898.
[PubMed]
3.
Beck, T.W.; Housh, T.J.; Johnson, G.O.; Weir, J.P.; Cramer, J.T.; Coburn, J.W.; Malek, M.H.; Mielke, M. Effects
of two days of isokinetic training on strength and electromyographic amplitude in the agonist and antagonist
muscles. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2007,21, 757–762. [PubMed]
4.
Prevost, M.C.; Nelson, A.G.; Maraj, B.K.V. The effect of two days of velocity-specific isokinetic training on
torque production. J. Strength Cond. Res. 1999,13, 35–39.
5.
Brown, L.E.; Whitehurst, M. The effect of short-term isokinetic training on force and rate of velocity
development. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2003,17, 88–94. [PubMed]
6.
Moritani, T.; deVries, H.A. Neural factors versus hypertrophy in the time course of muscle strength gain.
Am. J. Phys. Med. 1979,58, 115–130. [PubMed]
7.
Akima, H.; Takahashi, H.; Kuno, S.Y.; Masuda, K.; Masuda, T.; Shimojo, H.; Anno, I.; Itai, Y.; Katsuta, S. Early
phase adaptations of muscle use and strength to isokinetic training. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.
1999
,31, 588–594.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
8.
Mujika, I.; Padilla, S. Muscular characteristics of detraining in humans. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.
2001
,33,
1297–1303. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9.
Mujika, I.; Padilla, S. Detraining: Loss of training-induced physiological and performance adaptations. Part i:
Short term insufficient training stimulus. Sports Med. 2000,30, 79–87. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10.
Hakkinen, K.; Komi, P.V.; Tesch, P.A. Effects of combined concentric and eccentric strength training and
detraining on force-time, muscle fiber and metabolic characteristics of leg extensor muscles. Scand. J.
Sports Sci. 1981,3, 50–58.
11.
Hakkinen, K.; Alen, M.; Komi, P.V. Changes in isometric force- and relaxation-time, electromyographic
and muscle fibre characteristics of human skeletal muscle during strength training and detraining.
Acta Physiol. Scand. 1985,125, 573–585. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12.
Houston, M.E.; Froese, E.A.; Valeriote, S.P.; Green, H.J.; Ranney, D.A. Muscle performance, morphology
and metabolic capacity during strength training and detraining: A one leg model. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol.
Occup. Physiol. 1983,51, 25–35. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sports 2016,4, 7 9 of 10
13.
Narici, M.V.; Roi, G.S.; Landoni, L.; Minetti, A.E.; Cerretelli, P. Changes in force, cross-sectional area and
neural activation during strength training and detraining of the human quadriceps. Eur. J. Appl Physiol.
Occup. Physiol. 1989,59, 310–319. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14.
Thorstensson, A. Observations on strength training and detraining. Acta Physiol. Scand.
1977
,100, 491–493.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
15.
Andersen, L.L.; Andersen, J.L.; Magnusson, S.P.; Aagaard, P. Neuromuscular adaptations to detraining
following resistance training in previously untrained subjects. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol.
2005
,93, 511–518.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
16.
Colliander, E.B.; Tesch, P.A. Effects of detraining following short term resistance training on eccentric and
concentric muscle strength. Acta Physiol. Scand. 1992,144, 23–29. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17.
Faigenbaum, A.D.; Westcott, W.L.; Micheli, L.J.; Outerbridge, A.R.; Long, C.J.; LaRosa-Loud, R.;
Zaichkowsky, L.D. The effects of strength training and detraining on children. J. Strength Cond. Res.
1996,10, 109–114. [CrossRef]
18.
Farthing, J.P.; Chilibeck, P.D. The effects of eccentric and concentric training at different velocities on muscle
hypertrophy. Eur. J. Appl Physiol. 2003,89, 578–586. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19.
Knight, K.; Ingersoll, C.; Bartholomew, J. Isotonic contractions might be more effective than isokinetic
contractions in developing muscle strength. J. Sport Rehabil. 2001,10, 124–131.
20.
Weir, J.P.; Wagner, L.L.; Housh, T.J. The effect of rest interval length on repeated maximal bench presses.
J. Strength Cond. Res. 1994,8. [CrossRef]
21.
Matuszak, M.E.; Fry, A.C.; Weiss, L.W.; Ireland, T.R.; McKnight, M.M. Effect of rest interval length on
repeated 1 repetition maximum back squats. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2003,17, 634–637. [PubMed]
22.
Egan, A.; Winchester, J.; Foster, C.; McGuigan, M. Using session rpe to monitor different methods of resistance
exercise. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2006,5, 289–295.
23.
Sweet, T.W.; Foster, C.; McGuigan, M.R.; Brice, G. Quantitation of resistance training using the session rating
of perceived exertion method. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2004,18, 796–802. [PubMed]
24.
Foster, C.; Florhaug, J.A.; Franklin, J.; Gottschall, L.; Hrovatin, L.A.; Parker, S.; Doleshal, P.; Dodge, C. A new
approach to monitoring exercise training. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2001,15, 109–115. [PubMed]
25.
Day, M.L.; McGuigan, M.R.; Brice, G.; Foster, C. Monitoring exercise intensity during resistance training
using the session rpe scale. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2004,18, 353–358. [PubMed]
26.
Douris, P.C. The effect of isokinetic exercise on the relationship between blood lactate and muscle fatigue.
J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 1993,17, 31–35. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27.
Munn, J.; Herbert, R.D.; Gandevia, S.C. Contralateral effects of unilateral resistance training: A meta-analysis.
J. Appl. Physiol. 2004,96, 1861–1866. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28.
Carroll, T.J.; Herbert, R.D.; Munn, J.; Lee, M.; Gandevia, S.C. Contralateral effects of unilateral strength
training: Evidence and possible mechanisms. J. Appl. Physiol. 2006,101, 1514–1522. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29.
Rutherford, O.M.; Jones, D.A. The role of learning and coordination in strength training. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol.
Occup. Physiol. 1986,55, 100–105. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30.
Palmer, H.S.; Haberg, A.K.; Fimland, M.S.; Solstad, G.M.; Moe Iversen, V.; Hoff, J.; Helgerud, J.; Eikenes, L.
Structural brain changes after 4 weeks of unilateral strength training of the lower limb. J. Appl. Physiol.
2013,115, 167–175. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31.
Sariyildiz, M.; Karacan, I.; Rezvani, A.; Ergin, O.; Cidem, M. Cross-education of muscle strength:
Cross-training effects are not confined to untrained contralateral homologous muscle. Scand. J. Med.
Sci. Sports 2011,21, e359–e364. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32.
Hortobagyi, T.; Houmard, J.A.; Stevenson, J.R.; Fraser, D.D.; Johns, R.A.; Israel, R.G. The effects of detraining
on power athletes. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 1993,25, 929–935. [PubMed]
33.
Shaver, L.G. Cross transfer effects of conditioning and deconditioning on muscular strength. Ergonomics
1975,18, 9–16. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34.
Kraemer, W.J.; Fleck, S.J.; Evans, W.J. Strength and power training: Physiological mechanisms of adaptation.
Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 1996,24, 363–397. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35.
Staron, R.S.; Karapondo, D.L.; Kraemer, W.J.; Fry, A.C.; Gordon, S.E.; Falkel, J.E.; Hagerman, F.C.;
Hikida, R.S. Skeletal muscle adaptations during early phase of heavy-resistance training in men and women.
J. Appl. Physiol. 1994,76, 1247–1255. [PubMed]
Sports 2016,4, 7 10 of 10
36.
Enoka, R.M. Muscle strength and its development. New perspectives. Sports Med.
1988
,6, 146–168.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
37.
Sale, D.G. Influence of exercise and training on motor unit activation. Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev.
1987
,15, 95–151.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
38.
Moritani, T.; deVries, H.A. Potential for gross muscle hypertrophy in older men. J. Gerontol.
1980
,35, 672–682.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
39.
Sale, D.G. Neural adaptation to resistance training. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.
1988
,20, S135–S145. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
40.
Ikai, M.; Fukunaga, T. A study on training effect on strength per unit cross-sectional area of muscle by means
of ultrasonic measurement. Int. Z. Angew. Physiol. 1970,28, 173–180. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41.
Kanehisa, H.; Miyashita, M. Specificity of velocity in strength training. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. Occup. Physiol.
1983,52, 104–106. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42.
Knight, C.A.; Kamen, G. Adaptations in muscular activation of the knee extensor muscles with strength
training in young and older adults. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 2001,11, 405–412. [CrossRef]
43.
Costa, P.B.; Herda, T.J.; Walter, A.A.; Valdez, A.M.; Cramer, J.T. Effects of short-term resistance training and
subsequent detraining on the electromechanical delay. Muscle Nerve
2013
,48, 135–136. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44.
Van Leeuwen, D.M.; de Ruiter, C.J.; Nolte, P.A.; de Haan, A. Preoperative strength training for elderly
patients awaiting total knee arthroplasty. Rehabil. Res. Pract. 2014,2014. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45.
Rooks, D.S.; Huang, J.; Bierbaum, B.E.; Bolus, S.A.; Rubano, J.; Connolly, C.E.; Alpert, S.; Iversen, M.D.;
Katz, J.N. Effect of preoperative exercise on measures of functional status in men and women undergoing
total hip and knee arthroplasty. Arthritis Rheum. 2006,55, 700–708. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46.
Topp, R.; Swank, A.M.; Quesada, P.M.; Nyland, J.; Malkani, A. The effect of prehabilitation exercise on
strength and functioning after total knee arthroplasty. PM R 2009,1, 729–735. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47.
Swank, A.M.; Kachelman, J.B.; Bibeau, W.; Quesada, P.M.; Nyland, J.; Malkani, A.; Topp, R.V. Prehabilitation
before total knee arthroplasty increases strength and function in older adults with severe osteoarthritis.
J. Strength Cond. Res. 2011,25, 318–325. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
©
2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons by Attribution
(CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
... The very short-term resistance training (VST) model utilizes 2-3 training sessions to determine the minimal number of sessions necessary to observe the early skeletal muscle and performance adaptations. Previous VST studies have examined the effects on forearm flexor [10] and knee extensor performance [11,12] using isokinetic forms of training, and has recently been applied to both lower body [13,14] and upper body [15] DCER exercises, as well as the efficacy of creatine supplementation to increase strength [16]. ...
Article
Full-text available
This study compared sex responses for strength and barbell velocity from very short-term resistance training (VST, consisting of 2–3 training sessions) for an upper body dynamic constant external resistance (DCER) exercise (bench press [BP]). Ten females (mean ± standard deviation (SD) age: 21.3 ± 3 years, height: 166.2 ± 6 cm, body mass: 71.4 ± 10.7 kg) and 10 males (mean ± SD age: 24.6 ± 4 years, height: 179.5 ± 8 cm, body mass: 88.6 ± 11 kg) completed a pre-test visit to determine the BP 1 repetition maximum (1RM) as well as the mean (BPMV) and peak (BPPV) barbell velocities from the BP 1RM. The VST involved three training visits where the participants performed 5 sets of 6 repetitions, at 65% of the 1RM. The post-test followed the same procedures as the pre-test visit. There were significant increases in 1RM strength for both the males (5.1%) and females (5.4%) between pre-test and post-test. There were no significance differences between sex for mean (BPMV) and peak (BPPV); however, overall there was a 32.7% increase in BPMV and a 29.8% increase in BPPV. These findings indicated an increase in strength and barbell velocity for both males and females as a result of VST upper body DCER exercise in untrained subjects.
Article
Early adaptations of eccentric training show several advantages over concentric training. The purpose of this study was to quantify the effects of 4-weeks of multi-joint eccentric versus traditional leg press (TLP) training on muscle strength, rate of torque development (RTD) and jump and sprint performance adaptations. Twenty-six resistance trained adults performed either an eccentric or a TLP resistance training program twice per week for 4-weeks. Single-joint isometric maximum and rapid strength (peak torque and RTD, respectively) and isokinetic strength of the knee extensors and flexors, multi-joint eccentric strength, leg press strength (1-RM), 40-m sprint, and vertical and long jump were measured before (Pre), at the midpoint (Mid), and after (Post) a 4-week training period. Four weeks of isokinetic multi-joint eccentric training elicited greater test-specific strength gains (ES=1.06) compared to TLP (ES=0.11). The eccentric group (ES=0.51 and 0.54) also yielded moderate improvements in the early-middle phase RTD (RTD100-200) whereas the TLP group showed small-moderate improvements (ES=0.37). The majority of the single-joint strength variables showed negligible improvements. Performance tests showed no (broad jump) to small (vertical jump; sprint for the leg press) improvements. Eccentric multi-joint training induced significant improvements for lower body strength in a short amount of time in a trained population. These accelerated adaptations and also the lowered energy requirements of eccentric exercise may be useful for clinicians or practitioners when prescribing training programs for those who are injured, sedentary, or elderly, who are in need of time efficient muscle function improvements.
Article
Full-text available
1 Finland HÄKKINEN K., KOMI P.V. & TESCH P.A. Effect of ccmbined concentric ard eccentric strength training and detraining on force-time, muscle fiber-and metabolic characteristics of leg extensor muscles. Scand. J ,Sports Sci. 3 (2): 50-58, 1981. Prog¡essive strength training of combined concentric and eccentric contractions were performed three times a week for 16 weeks by 14 males {20-30 yrs of age) accustomed to weight training. The training peeriod was iollowed bv 8 weeks of detraining. The training program consisted mainly of dynamic exeicises for the ieg-extensovs with loads of 80 to 120 of one maximum repetition The training caused significant improvements in-maximal force (p < 0.001) and various force-time (p (0.05-4.01) para¡àeters. Du¡ing thg I'ast trarning àionìh tbe inãrease in force was gireatly tri¡nited' and there was ¿ decrease in th,e force-time parameters. The marked improvements in mwcle strength were accompanied by ccnsiderable intemål qdaptatioos ,Ín-ttre tnaCned muscle, as Judged from l¡rcreases (p < 0-001) ,iqr. the fibet ãeas ôt tËe Ïast fi¡¡itch (FT) and slow twitch (ST) fibers. Durlng early conditioning improvement i! the qqgs! jump w,as related to tl.e relãtive hypertrop]ty of tr1l ii¡eis fo <0.01). No sier¡j-Êi,cå,r¡t ct¡anges ,in tJre er¡zyme aittv¡tiês oi mÍoki¡¡ase-a¡¡d creatine kirmse were found as a result of-tra¡rrir}g, but i,ndividt¡al charrges in my-o-kinase activity $/ere related to the relative. hypertrop'hy of FT fibers-(p ç 0.05) and Improvernent i+ the squat jump (p < O.Of)-during early conditiontuag. All the ada,p-iatlo:ns'-incilcating musõle hypertrophy occurred. prtm@lv during the last two training mo¡rths. Decreases (p (0.001) in maxirnal force during the detrairring were accompâ-nied bv a sisrificår¡t rediuction in the fi¡b,er areas of ttle fC tp < 0.01) and ST (p < 0.05) tvpes end by a change in bödy-antliropometry.-A periodiè-and partial usage. of àccentr-ic contráctions,-together with conèentric training' is suggested to be effectiùe in training for-maximal force and äso for force-time eharacteristics. In training of longer durations the specific effects of strength trainlng are-obviot¡s and explaiñable by adaptatlons in the trained muscle. Keg tenns: erìzJûne actlvities, muscle mechanics, muscle metabollsn, muscle streng:th.
Article
Full-text available
Objective. To investigate the feasibility and effects of additional preoperative high intensity strength training for patients awaiting total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Design. Clinical controlled trial. Patients. Twenty-two patients awaiting TKA. Methods. Patients were allocated to a standard training group or a group receiving standard training with additional progressive strength training for 6 weeks. Isometric knee extensor strength, voluntary activation, chair stand, 6-minute walk test (6MWT), and stair climbing were assessed before and after 6 weeks of training and 6 and 12 weeks after TKA. Results. For 3 of the 11 patients in the intensive strength group, training load had to be adjusted because of pain. For both groups combined, improvements in chair stand and 6MWT were observed before surgery, but intensive strength training was not more effective than standard training. Voluntary activation did not change before and after surgery, and postoperative recovery was not different between groups (P > 0.05). Knee extensor strength of the affected leg before surgery was significantly associated with 6-minute walk (r = 0.50) and the stair climb (r - = 0.58, P < 0.05). Conclusion. Intensive strength training was feasible for the majority of patients, but there were no indications that it is more effective than standard training to increase preoperative physical performance. This trial was registered with NTR2278.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this study was to compare session rating of perceived exertion for different resistance training techniques in the squat exercise. These techniques included traditional resistance training, super slow, and maximal power training. Fourteen college-age women (Mean ± SD; age = 22 ± 3 years; height = 1.68 ± 0. 07 m) completed three experimental trials in a randomized crossover design. The traditional resistance training protocol consisted of 6 sets of 6 repetitions of squats using 80% of 1-RM. The super slow protocol consisted of 6 sets of 6 repetitions using 55% of 1-RM. The maximal power protocol consisted of 6 sets of 6 repetitions using 30% of 1-RM. Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) measures were obtained following each set using Borg's CR-10 scale. In addition, a session RPE value was obtained 30 minutes following each exercise session. When comparing average RPE and session RPE, no significant difference was found. However, power training had significantly lower (p < 0.05) average and session RPE (4.50 ± 1.9 and 4.5 ± 2.1) compared to both super slow training (7.81 ± 1.75 and 7.43 ± 1.73) and traditional training (7.33 ± 1.52 and 7.13 ± 1.73). The results indicate that session RPE values are not significantly different from the more traditional methods of measuring RPE during exercise bouts. It does appear that the resistance training mode that is used results in differences in perceived exertion that does not relate directly to the loading that is used. Using session RPE provides practitioners with the same information about perceived exertion as the traditional RPE measures. Taking a single measure following a training session would appear to be much easier than using multiple measures of RPE throughout a resistance training workout. However, practitioners should also be aware that the RPE does not directly relate to the relative intensity used and appears to be dependent on the mode of resistance exercise that is used
Article
Full-text available
Introduction: The purpose of this study was to examine and compare the effects of 3 days of dynamic constant external resistance (DCER) and isokinetic (ISOK) training and subsequent detraining on the electromechanical delay (EMD). Methods: Thirty-one men [age 22.2 ± 4.2 years, body mass 77.9 ± 12.9 kg, height 173.9 ± 5.4 cm (mean ± SD)] were randomly assigned to a DCER training group, ISOK training group, or control (CONT) group. Results: No significant changes were found for EMD from pre- to posttraining assessments 1, 2, and 3 [4.5 ± 0.2 ms, 4.7 ± 0.2 ms, 4.5 ± 0.1 ms, 4.5 ± 0.2 ms, respectively (mean ± SE)] (P > 0.05). Conclusions: It can be hypothesized that increases in strength observed after a short-term resistance training program may not be attributed to stiffness changes in the series-elastic component.
Article
Full-text available
Strength training enhances muscular strength and neural drive but the underlying neuronal mechanisms remain unclear. This study used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to identify possible changes in corticospinal tract (CST) microstructure, cortical activation and subcortical structure volumes following unilateral strength training of the plantar flexors. Mechanisms underlying cross education of strength in the untrained leg were also investigated. Young, healthy adult volunteers were assigned to training (n=12) or control (n=9) groups. The 4 weeks of training consisted of 16 sessions of 36 unilateral isometric plantar flexions. Maximum voluntary isometric contraction torque (MVC) was tested pre and post training. MRI investigation included a T1-weighted scan, diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and functional MRI (fMRI). Probabilistic fiber tracking of the CST was performed on the DTI images using a two-ROI approach. Fractional anisotropy and mean diffusivity (MD) were calculated for the left and right CST in each individual before and after training. Standard fMRI analyses and volumetric analyses of subcortical structures were also performed. MVC significantly increased in both the trained and untrained legs of the training group, but not the control group. A significant decrease in MD was found in the left CST following strength training of the right leg. No significant changes were detected in the right CST. No significant changes in cortical activation were observed following training. A significant reduction in left putamen volume was found after training. This study provides the first evidence for strength training-related changes in white matter and putamen in the healthy adult brain.
Article
Full-text available
The effects of an 8-week strength training program followed by an 8-week detraining period were evaluated in 11 boys and 4 girls, ages 7 to 12 years. Three boys and 6 girls matched for age and level of maturity served as controls. Progressive strength training was performed twice a week on child-size equipment. Subjects were tested on the following measures: 6 repetition maximum (RIM) leg extension, 6-RM chest press, vertical jump, and flexibility. Strength training significantly (p < 0.05; ANOVA) increased 6-RM strength on the leg extension (53.5%) and chest press (41.1%), whereas control group gains averaged 7.9%. Strength training did not significantly affect other variables. Detraining resulted in a significant loss of upper (-19.3%) and lower body (-28.1%) strength in the experimental group. The results suggest that participation in a short-term strength training program will increase the strength of children; however, strength gains regress toward untrained control values during the detraining period. (C) 1996 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Article
Problem Isokinetic contractions are thought to be superior to isotonic contractions for developing strength because resistance during them is greater. Because isokinetic resistance is accommodating, however, it decreases with fatigue. It is constant during multiple repetitions, so an aggressive isotonic procedure should produce more force as the muscle fatigues, which would be an advantage in strength development. Purpose To compare force production in isokinetic and isotonic muscle contractions at the beginning and end of a set of fatiguing repetitions. Methods Subjects performed 25 maximal-effort isokinetic knee extensions at 60°/s. After 25–72 hours, they performed maximal repetitions isotonically using 70% of the isokinetic peak torque with speed set at a maximum of 300°/s. Results Peak force during the first 3 repetitions was greater isokinetically, but average force was similar. During the last 3 repetitions, isotonic force was higher than isokinetic force. Conclusion Muscle is more active as it nears fatigue during an isotonic contraction. These data support the hypothesis that isotonic contractions recruit extra motor units at the point of fatigue.
Article
This study examined the effect of rest interval length on repeated one-repetition maximum (1-RM) bench press performance. Sixteen male college students (age = 22+/-2 yrs) who were experienced in the bench press exercise volunteered for this investigation. On the first laboratory visit the subjects' 1-RM was determined. The next four test sessions involved performing the 1-RM attempt two times, with the intertrial interval being 1, 3, 5, or 10 min. The results of a Cochran Q test found on significant (p > 0.05) difference in the ability to repeat a successful maximal bench press based on the rest interval lengths tested. These findings are consistent with previous research indicating a rapid return in maximal force production capabilities following a fatiguing task. These results indicate that 1-min rest intervals are sufficient for recovery between maximal strength tests. (C) 1994 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Article
To document the initial response of velocity-specific isokinetic training, two groups of nine males (19-35 years) performed either low velocity (3 sets of 10 reps at 0.52 rad?s-1, SVT) or fast velocity (3 sets of 10 reps at 4.71 rad?s-1, FVT) training for 2 days. Knee extension peak torque was measured at 0.52, 2.62, and 4.71 rad?s-1 on three separate days. Test 1 was given on day 1 and test 2 on day 4. Training protocols were performed on days 7 and 9, and test 3 was performed on day 11. Neither group showed a significant change (p > 0.05) in peak torque between test 1 and test 2 for any of the three test velocities. For test 3, SVT showed no change in torque at any speed, but FVT showed a significant (p < 0.05) 22.1 +/- 10.0% increase in mean peak torque at 4.71 rad?s-1. Since FVT's magnitude of increase in peak torque was similar to that reported by other investigators using 6-10 week training protocols, it is suggested that neural adaptations have a major role in torque production improvements that are specific to a single fast training velocity. (C) 1999 National Strength and Conditioning Association