Contralateral effects of eccentric resistance training on immobilized arm
Contralateral effects of eccentric resistance training on immobilized arm
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/sms.13821
复制
发表时间：
2020-09-22
影响因子：
4.1
通讯作者：
Penailillo, Luis
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Valdes, Omar;Ramirez, Carlos;Penailillo, Luis
本研究比较了肘屈肌的对侧偏心训练(ECC)和偏心/偏心耦合阻力训练(CON-ECC)对固定手臂的影响。健康受试者30例，年龄18~34岁，随机分为单纯固定组(CTRL组)、固定+ECC组(n=10)和固定+ECC组(n=10)。所有受试者的非优势臂被制动(8h中心点日(-1))4周，在此期间，优势臂(未被制动)进行ECC和CON-ECC，每周3次(3~6组，每次重复10次)，负荷分别为80%~120%和60%~90%，与总训练量相匹配。分别于制动前和制动后测量臂围、1-RM和最大自主等长收缩(MVIC)力量、肱二头肌表面肌电波幅(RMS)、力量发展速度(RFD)和关节位置感(JPS)。Ctrl显示固定臂的MVIC(-21.7%)、sEMG(RMS)(-35.2%)、RFD(-26.0%)、1-RM(-14.4%)、JPS(-87.4%)和臂围(-5.1%)下降(P<；0.05)。ECC和Con-ECC均可减轻或消除这些缺陷，ECC的作用范围大于Con-ECC(0.29：+12.1%，vs-0.18：-0.1%)和sEMG(RMS)(0.31：17.5%vs-0.15：-5.9%)。对于训练组，ECC对MVIC的影响大于CON-ECC(0.47比0.29)，增加的臂围(+2.9%)、表面肌电信号(RMS)(+77.9%)和RDF(+31.8%)比CON-ECC(+0.6%、+15.1%和+15.8%)大(P<；0.05)。对侧臂仅偏心阻力训练比向心-偏心训练更能有效地对抗负性制动效应。
This study compared the effects of contralateral eccentric-only (ECC) and concentric-/eccentric-coupled resistance training (CON-ECC) of the elbow flexors on immobilized arm. Thirty healthy participants (18-34 y) were randomly allocated to immobilization only (CTRL; n = 10), immobilization and ECC (n = 10), or immobilization and CON-ECC group (n = 10). The non-dominant arms of all participants were immobilized (8 h center dot day(-1)) for 4 weeks, during which ECC and CON-ECC were performed by the dominant (non-immobilized) arm 3 times a week (3-6 sets of 10 repetitions per session) with an 80%-120% and 60%-90% of one concentric repetition maximum (1-RM) load, respectively, matching the total training volume. Arm circumference, 1-RM and maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) strength, biceps brachii surface electromyogram amplitude (sEMG(RMS)), rate of force development (RFD), and joint position sense (JPS) were measured for both arms before and after immobilization. CTRL showed decreases (P < .05) in MVIC (-21.7%), sEMG(RMS)(-35.2%), RFD (-26.0%), 1-RM (-14.4%), JPS (-87.4%), and arm circumference (-5.1%) of the immobilized arm. These deficits were attenuated or eliminated by ECC and CON-ECC, with greater effect sizes for ECC than CON-ECC in MVIC (0.29: +12.1%, vs -0.18: -0.1%) and sEMG(RMS)(0.31:17.5% vs -0.15: -5.9%). For the trained arm, ECC showed greater effect size for MVIC than CON-ECC (0.47 vs 0.29), and increased arm circumference (+2.9%), sEMG(RMS)(+77.9%), and RDF (+31.8%) greater (P < .05) than CON-ECC (+0.6%, +15.1%, and + 15.8%, respectively). The eccentric-only resistance training of the contralateral arm was more effective to counteract the negative immobilization effects than the concentric-eccentric training.