scholarly journals Implementing Eccentric Resistance Training—Part 1: A Brief Review of Existing Methods

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy J. Suchomel ◽  
John P. Wagle ◽  
Jamie Douglas ◽  
Christopher B. Taber ◽  
Mellissa Harden ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Resistance Training ◽  
Marked Effect ◽  
Muscle Size ◽  
Training Methods ◽  
Eccentric Training ◽  
Plyometric Training ◽  
Force Output ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Muscle Cross Sectional Area ◽  
Production Characteristics

The purpose of this review was to provide a physiological rationale for the use of eccentric resistance training and to provide an overview of the most commonly prescribed eccentric training methods. Based on the existing literature, there is a strong physiological rationale for the incorporation of eccentric training into a training program for an individual seeking to maximize muscle size, strength, and power. Specific adaptations may include an increase in muscle cross-sectional area, force output, and fiber shortening velocities, all of which have the potential to benefit power production characteristics. Tempo eccentric training, flywheel inertial training, accentuated eccentric loading, and plyometric training are commonly implemented in applied contexts. These methods tend to involve different force absorption characteristics and thus, overload the muscle or musculotendinous unit in different ways during lengthening actions. For this reason, they may produce different magnitudes of improvement in hypertrophy, strength, and power. The constraints to which they are implemented can have a marked effect on the characteristics of force absorption and therefore, could affect the nature of the adaptive response. However, the versatility of the constraints when prescribing these methods mean that they can be effectively implemented to induce these adaptations within a variety of populations.

scholarly journals Implementing Eccentric Resistance Training—Part 2: Practical Recommendations

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy J. Suchomel ◽  
John P. Wagle ◽  
Jamie Douglas ◽  
Christopher B. Taber ◽  
Mellissa Harden ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Resistance Training ◽  
Power Output ◽  
Training Programs ◽  
Training Methods ◽  
Eccentric Training ◽  
Plyometric Training ◽  
Strength And Conditioning ◽  
Force Development ◽  
Holistic Training ◽  
Practical Recommendations

The purpose of this review is to provide strength and conditioning practitioners with recommendations on how best to implement tempo eccentric training (TEMPO), flywheel inertial training (FIT), accentuated eccentric loading (AEL), and plyometric training (PT) into resistance training programs that seek to improve an athlete’s hypertrophy, strength, and power output. Based on the existing literature, TEMPO may be best implemented with weaker athletes to benefit positional strength and hypertrophy due to the time under tension. FIT may provide an effective hypertrophy, strength, and power stimulus for untrained and weaker individuals; however, stronger individuals may not receive the same eccentric (ECC) overload stimulus. Although AEL may be implemented throughout the training year to benefit hypertrophy, strength, and power output, this strategy is better suited for stronger individuals. When weaker and stronger individuals are exposed to PT, they are exposed to an ECC overload stimulus as a result of increases in the ECC force and ECC rate of force development. In conclusion, when choosing to utilize ECC training methods, the practitioner must integrate these methods into a holistic training program that is designed to improve the athlete’s performance capacity.

Early resistance training-induced increases in muscle cross-sectional area are concomitant with edema-induced muscle swelling

2015 ◽  
Vol 116 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felipe Damas ◽  
Stuart M. Phillips ◽  
Manoel E. Lixandrão ◽  
Felipe C. Vechin ◽  
Cleiton A. Libardi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Resistance Training ◽  
Cross Sectional Area ◽  
Sectional Area ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Muscle Cross Sectional Area

Changes in the human muscle force-velocity relationship in response to resistance training and subsequent detraining

2005 ◽  
Vol 99 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lars L. Andersen ◽  
Jesper L. Andersen ◽  
S. Peter Magnusson ◽  
Charlotte Suetta ◽  
Jørgen L. Madsen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Resistance Training ◽  
Knee Extension ◽  
Limb Movement ◽  
Cross Sectional Area ◽  
Contractile Properties ◽  
Type I ◽  
Maximal Velocity ◽  
Sectional Area ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Muscle Cross Sectional Area

Previous studies show that cessation of resistance training, commonly known as “detraining,” is associated with strength loss, decreased neural drive, and muscular atrophy. Detraining may also increase the expression of fast muscle myosin heavy chain (MHC) isoforms. The present study examined the effect of detraining subsequent to resistance training on contractile performance during slow-to-medium velocity isokinetic muscle contraction vs. performance of maximal velocity “unloaded” limb movement (i.e., no external loading of the limb). Maximal knee extensor strength was measured in an isokinetic dynamometer at 30 and 240°/s, and performance of maximal velocity limb movement was measured with a goniometer during maximal unloaded knee extension. Muscle cross-sectional area was determined with MRI. Electromyographic signals were measured in the quadriceps and hamstring muscles. Twitch contractions were evoked in the passive vastus lateralis muscle. MHC isoform composition was determined with SDS-PAGE. Isokinetic muscle strength increased 18% ( P < 0.01) and 10% ( P < 0.05) at slow and medium velocities, respectively, along with gains in muscle cross-sectional area and increased electromyogram in response to 3 mo of resistance training. After 3 mo of detraining these gains were lost, whereas in contrast maximal unloaded knee extension velocity and power increased 14% ( P < 0.05) and 44% ( P < 0.05), respectively. Additionally, faster muscle twitch contractile properties along with an increased and decreased amount of MHC type II and MHC type I isoforms, respectively, were observed. In conclusion, detraining subsequent to resistance training increases maximal unloaded movement speed and power in previously untrained subjects. A phenotypic shift toward faster muscle MHC isoforms (I → IIA → IIX) and faster electrically evoked muscle contractile properties in response to detraining may explain the present results.

UPPER BODY RESISTANCE TRAINING IN WOMEN INCREASES ARM MUSCLE CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA BY A 20% AVERAGE

1999 ◽  
Vol 31 (Supplement) ◽  
pp. S325
Author(s):  
L. A. Gotshalk ◽  
B. C. Nindl ◽  
R. U. Newton ◽  
S. J. Fleck ◽  
K. H??kkinen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Resistance Training ◽  
Cross Sectional Area ◽  
Upper Body ◽  
Sectional Area ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Body Resistance ◽  
Muscle Cross Sectional Area

Muscle fiber number in biceps brachii in bodybuilders and control subjects

1984 ◽  
Vol 57 (5) ◽  
pp. 1399-1403 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. D. MacDougall ◽  
D. G. Sale ◽  
S. E. Alway ◽  
J. R. Sutton
Keyword(s):  
Muscle Fiber ◽  
Biceps Brachii ◽  
Cross Sectional Area ◽  
Muscle Size ◽  
Sectional Area ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Trained Subjects ◽  
Fiber Area ◽  
Muscle Cross Sectional Area

Muscle fiber numbers were estimated in vivo in biceps brachii in 5 elite male bodybuilders, 7 intermediate caliber bodybuilders, and 13 age-matched controls. Mean fiber area and collagen volume density were calculated from needle biopsies and muscle cross-sectional area by computerized tomographic scanning. Contralateral measurements in a subsample of seven subjects indicated the method for estimation of fiber numbers to have adequate reliability. There was a wide interindividual range for fiber numbers in biceps (172,085–418,884), but despite large differences in muscle size both bodybuilder groups possessed the same number of muscle fibers as the group of untrained controls. Although there was a high correlation between average cross-sectional fiber area and total muscle cross-sectional area within each group, many of the subjects with the largest muscles also tended to have a large number of fibers. Since there were equally well-trained subjects with fewer than normal fiber numbers, we interpret this finding to be due to genetic endowment rather than to training-induced hyperplasia. The proportion of muscle comprised of connective and other noncontractile tissue was the same for all subjects (approximately 13%), thus indicating greater absolute amounts of connective tissue in the trained subjects. We conclude that in humans, heavy resistance training directed toward achieving maximum size in skeletal muscle does not result in an increase in fiber numbers.

Individual Muscle Adaptations in different Resistance Training Systems in Well-Trained Men

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vitor Angleri ◽  
Carlos Ugrinowitsch ◽  
Cleiton Augusto Libardi
Keyword(s):  
Resistance Training ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Leg Extension ◽  
Leg Press ◽  
Training Systems ◽  
Subject Design ◽  
Muscle Adaptations ◽  
Traditional Resistance Training ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Muscle Cross Sectional Area

AbstractUsing a within-subject design we compared the individual responses between drop-set (DS) vs. traditional resistance training (TRAD) (n=16) and crescent pyramid (CP) vs. TRAD (n=15). Muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), leg press and leg extension 1 repetition maximum (1-RM) were assessed pre and post training. At group level, CSA increased from pre to post (DS: 7.8% vs. TRAD: 7.5%, P=0.02; CP: 7.5% vs. TRAD: 7.8%, P=0.02). All protocols increased the 1-RM from pre to post for leg press (DS: 24.9% vs. TRAD: 26.8%, P < 0.0001; CP: 27.3% vs. TRAD:2 6.3%, P < 0.0001) and leg extension (DS: 17.1% vs. TRAD: 17.3%, P < 0.0001; CP: 17.0% vs. TRAD: 16.6%, P < 0.0001). Individual analysis for CSA demonstrated no differences between protocols in 15 subjects. For leg press 1-RM, 5 subjects responded more to TRAD, 2 to DS and 9 similarly between protocols. In TRAD vs. CP, 4 subjects responded more to CP, 1 to TRAD and 10 similarly between protocols. For leg extension 1-RM 2 subjects responded more to DS, 3 to TRAD and 11 similarly between protocols. Additionally, 2 subjects responded more to CP, 2 to TRAD and 11 similarly between protocols. In conclusion, all protocols induced similar individual responses for CSA. For 1-RM, some subjects experience greater gains for the protocol performed with higher loads, such as CP.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document