Post by John A. Casler on May 23, 2009 10:02:04 GMT -8
This is from Jamie Carruthers as posted to SuperTraining
To visit SUPERTRAINING FORUM
health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/?yguid=44276758
Differential Adaptations to Eccentric versus Conventional Resistance Training in Older Humans.
Exp Physiol. 2009 Apr 24. [Epub ahead of print]
Reeves ND, Maganaris CN, Longo S, Narici MV.
We hypothesised that training with eccentric contractions only (therefore utilising higher loads) would yield greater muscle structural and strength gains compared to conventional resistance training. Nine older adults (mean +/- SD age: 74 +/- 3 years) were assigned to a conventional (CONV) resistance training group performing both concentric and eccentric contractions and 10 (age: 67 +/- 2 years) to an eccentric-only (ECC) resistance training group. Both groups trained 3 times per week for 14 weeks at 80% of the 5-repetition maximum, specific to each training mode. Maximum knee extensor torque was assessed during isometric, concentric and eccentric contractions across a range of angular velocities (0-3.49 rad.(-1)). Vastus lateralis muscle architecture (fascicle length, pennation angle and muscle thickness) was assessed in vivo at rest using ultrasonography. Training increased fascicle length in both groups, but the increase was significantly greater in the ECC (20% increase) than
the CONV (8% increase) group. Conversely, pennation angle significantly increased in the CONV (35%), but not in the ECC (5%) group. Muscle thickness increased to a similar extent in both groups (~12%).
In the ECC group, eccentric knee extensor torque increased by 9-17% across velocities, but concentric torque was unchanged. Conversely, in the CONV group, concentric torque increased by 22-37% across velocities, but eccentric torque was unchanged. Instead, isometric torque increased similarly in both groups (~8%). Thus, the two training regimens resulted in differential adaptations in muscle architecture and strength. These results suggest the stimulus for adding sarcomeres in-series and in-parallel may be different, which implies different myogenic responses induced by the two different training methods.
=================
Jamie Carruthers
Wakefield, UK
To visit SUPERTRAINING FORUM
health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/?yguid=44276758
Differential Adaptations to Eccentric versus Conventional Resistance Training in Older Humans.
Exp Physiol. 2009 Apr 24. [Epub ahead of print]
Reeves ND, Maganaris CN, Longo S, Narici MV.
We hypothesised that training with eccentric contractions only (therefore utilising higher loads) would yield greater muscle structural and strength gains compared to conventional resistance training. Nine older adults (mean +/- SD age: 74 +/- 3 years) were assigned to a conventional (CONV) resistance training group performing both concentric and eccentric contractions and 10 (age: 67 +/- 2 years) to an eccentric-only (ECC) resistance training group. Both groups trained 3 times per week for 14 weeks at 80% of the 5-repetition maximum, specific to each training mode. Maximum knee extensor torque was assessed during isometric, concentric and eccentric contractions across a range of angular velocities (0-3.49 rad.(-1)). Vastus lateralis muscle architecture (fascicle length, pennation angle and muscle thickness) was assessed in vivo at rest using ultrasonography. Training increased fascicle length in both groups, but the increase was significantly greater in the ECC (20% increase) than
the CONV (8% increase) group. Conversely, pennation angle significantly increased in the CONV (35%), but not in the ECC (5%) group. Muscle thickness increased to a similar extent in both groups (~12%).
In the ECC group, eccentric knee extensor torque increased by 9-17% across velocities, but concentric torque was unchanged. Conversely, in the CONV group, concentric torque increased by 22-37% across velocities, but eccentric torque was unchanged. Instead, isometric torque increased similarly in both groups (~8%). Thus, the two training regimens resulted in differential adaptations in muscle architecture and strength. These results suggest the stimulus for adding sarcomeres in-series and in-parallel may be different, which implies different myogenic responses induced by the two different training methods.
=================
Jamie Carruthers
Wakefield, UK