The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of isokinetic eccentric (ECC) and concentric (CON) training at two velocities [fast, 180 degrees s(-1 )(3.14 rad s(-1)) and slow,30 degrees s(-1)(0.52 rad s(-1))] on muscle hypertrophy. Twenty-four untrained volunteers (age 18-36 years) participated in fast- ( n=13) or slow- ( n=11) velocity training, where they trained one arm eccentrically for 8 weeks followed by CON training of the opposite arm for 8 weeks. Ten subjects served as controls (CNT). Subjects were tested before and after training for elbow flexor muscle thickness by sonography and isokinetic strength (Biodex). Overall, ECC training resulted in greater hypertrophy than CON training (P<0.01). No significant strength or hypertrophy changes occurred in the CNT group. ECC (180 degrees s(-1)) training resulted in greater hypertrophy than CON (180 degrees s(-1)) training and CON (30 degrees s(-1)) training (P<0.01). ECC (30 degrees s(-1)) training resulted in greater hypertrophy than CON (180 degrees s(-1)) training (P<0.05), but not CON (30 degrees s(-1)) training. ECC (180 degrees s(-1)) training resulted in the greatest increases in strength (P<0.01). We conclude that ECC fast training is the most effective for muscle hypertrophy and strength gain.

Our purpose was to assess muscular adaptations during 6 weeks of resistance training in 36 males randomly assigned to supplementation with whey protein (W; 1.2 g/kg/day), whey protein and creatine monohydrate (WC; 0.1 g/kg/day), or placebo (P; 1.2 g/kg/day maltodextrin). Measures included lean tissue mass by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry, bench press and squat strength (1-repetition maximum), and knee extension/flexion peak torque. Lean tissue mass increased to a greater extent with training in WC compared to the other groups, and in the W compared to the P group (p < .05). Bench press strength increased to a greater extent for WC compared to W and P (p < .05). Knee extension peak torque increased with training for WC and W (p < .05), but not for P. All other measures increased to a similar extent across groups. Continued training without supplementation for an additional 6 weeks resulted in maintenance of strength and lean tissue mass in all groups. Males that supplemented with whey protein while resistance training demonstrated greater improvement in knee extension peak torque and lean tissue mass than males engaged in training alone. Males that supplemented with a combination of whey protein and creatine had greater increases in lean tissue mass and bench press than those who supplemented with only whey protein or placebo. However, not all strength measures were improved with supplementation, since subjects who supplemented with creatine and/or whey protein had similar increases in squat strength and knee flexion peak torque compared to subjects who received placebo.

Cross-education of strength is the increase in strength of the untrained contralateral limb after unilateral training of the opposite homologous limb. We investigated central and peripheral neural adaptations associated with cross-education of strength. Twenty-three right-handed females were randomized into a unilateral training group or an imagery group. A sub-sample of eight subjects (four training, four imagery) was assessed with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) for patterns of cortical activation during exercise. Strength training was 6 weeks of maximal isometric ulnar deviation of the right arm, four times per week. Peak torque, muscle thickness (ultrasound), agonist-antagonist electromyography (EMG), and fMRI were assessed before and after training. Strength training was highly effective for increasing strength in trained (45.3%; P < 0.01) and untrained (47.1%; P < 0.01) limbs. The imagery group showed no increase in strength for either arm. Muscle thickness increased only in the trained arm of the training group (8.4%; P < 0.001). After training, there was an enlarged region of activation in contralateral sensorimotor cortex and left temporal lobe during muscle contractions with the untrained left arm (P < 0.001). Training was associated with a significantly greater change in agonist muscle EMG pooled over both limbs, compared to the imagery group (P < 0.05). These results suggest that cross-education of strength may be partly controlled by adaptations within sensorimotor cortex, consistent with previous studies of motor learning. However, this research demonstrates the involvement of temporal lobe regions that subserve semantic memory for movement, which has not been previously studied in this context. We argue that temporal lobe regions might play a significant role in the cross-education of strength.

Cross-education with hand strength training occurs only in the right-to-left direction of transfer in right-handed individuals. We conclude that cross-education of arm muscular strength is most pronounced to the nondominant arm.

The objective was to determine if strength training the free limb during a 3-wk period of unilateral immobilization attenuates strength loss in the immobilized limb through cross-education. Thirty right-handed participants were assigned to three groups. One group (n = 10) wore a cast and trained the free arm (Cast-Train). A second group (n = 10) wore a cast and did not train (Cast). A third group (n = 10) received no treatment (control). Casts were applied to the nondominant (left) wrist and hand by a physician. Strength training was maximal isometric ulnar deviation (right hand) 5 days/wk. Peak torque (dynamometer), electromyography (EMG), and muscle thickness (ultrasound) were assessed in both arms before and after the intervention. Cast-Train improved right arm strength [14.3 (SD 5.0) to 17.7 (SD 4.8) N x m; P < 0.05] with no significant muscle hypertrophy [3.73 (SD 0.43) to 3.84 (SD 0.52) cm; P = 0.09]. The immobilized arm of Cast-Train did not change in strength [13.9 (SD 4.3) to 14.2 (SD 4.6) N x m] or muscle thickness [3.61 (SD 0.51) to 3.57 (SD 0.43) cm]. The immobilized arm of Cast decreased in strength [12.2 (SD 3.8) to 10.4 (SD 2.5) N x m; P < 0.05] and muscle thickness [3.47 (SD 0.59) to 3.32 (SD 0.55) cm; P < 0.05]. Control showed no changes in the right arm [strength: 15.3 (SD 6.1) to 14.3 (SD 5.8) N x m; muscle thickness: 3.57 (SD 0.68) to 3.52 (SD 0.75) cm] or left arm [strength: 14.5 (SD 5.3) to 13.7 (SD 6.1) N x m; muscle thickness: 3.55 (SD 0.77) to 3.51 (SD 0.70) cm]. Agonist muscle activation remained unchanged after the intervention for both arms [right: 302 (SD 188) to 314 (SD 176) microV; left: 261 (SD 139) to 288 (SD 151) microV] with no group differences. Strength training of the free limb attenuated strength loss in the immobilized limb during unilateral immobilization. Strength training may have prevented muscle atrophy in the immobilized limb.

No abstract

No abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine whether cross-education, defined as the increase in strength of an untrained limb after training of the contralateral homologous limb, is specific to low and high velocity eccentric training. Twenty-six subjects were randomized into two groups ( n=13 each) that performed unilateral eccentric training of the elbow flexors on an isokinetic dynamometer at velocities of either 30 degrees s(-1) (0.52 rad s(-1)) or 180 degrees s(-1) (3.14 rad s(-1 )). Subjects trained three times per week for 8 weeks. Ten subjects served as controls and did not train. Subjects were tested before and after training for peak torque of the elbow flexors during eccentric and concentric contractions at 30 degrees s(-1) and 180 degrees s(-1). Eccentric peak torque at the velocity of 180 degrees s(-1) in the untrained arm increased only for the group that trained at that velocity (P<0.05). There were no other changes in untrained arms for any of the groups at velocities of 30 degrees s(-1) or 180 degrees s(-1). For the trained arm, the increase in eccentric torque (pooled over velocities) was greatest for the group training at 180 degrees s(-1), whereas the increase in concentric torque was similar for the groups training at 30 degrees s(-1) and 180 degrees s(-1). For the trained arm, there was no specificity for velocity or contraction type. We conclude that cross-education was specific to contraction type and velocity when fast (but not slow) eccentric contractions were used during training; whereas there was no specificity of training in the trained arm.