These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison between concentric-only, eccentric-only, and concentric-eccentric resistance training of the elbow flexors for their effects on muscle strength and hypertrophy.
    Author: Sato S, Yoshida R, Murakoshi F, Sasaki Y, Yahata K, Kasahara K, Nunes JP, Nosaka K, Nakamura M.
    Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol; 2022 Dec; 122(12):2607-2614. PubMed ID: 36107233.
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]