The objective of this study was to investigate differences within individual subjects in the ability to activate the quadriceps, plantar flexors (PF), dorsiflexors (DF), and elbow flexors (EF) during isometric contractions. Twelve male subjects performed submaximal and maximal voluntary isometric contractions, and maximal tetanic contractions were also induced by electrical stimulation. The interpolated twitch technique was used to gauge the extent of muscle inactivation or inability to produce maximum force. Measurements included torque output, absolute and relative rate of force development (RFD), and percentage of muscle inactivation. The quadriceps exceeded all other muscle groups in voluntary and tetanic torque output, voluntary absolute RFD, and absolute and relative tetanic RFD. The quadriceps also exceeded the PF and DF in voluntary relative RFD and had greater muscle inactivation (15.5%) than the EF (5.0%), PF (5.0%), and DF (1.3%). Although the higher RFD may suggest a higher percentage of type II fibers in the quadriceps, their higher threshold of recruitment leads to greater difficulty in fully activating the quadriceps.

No abstract

This is the first study to examine corticospinal excitability (CSE) to antagonistic muscle groups during arm cycling. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the motor cortex and transmastoid electrical stimulation (TMES) of the corticospinal tract were used to assess changes in supraspinal and spinal excitability, respectively. TMS induced motor evoked potentials (MEPs) and TMES induced cervicomedullary evoked potentials (CMEPs) were recorded from the biceps and triceps brachii at two positions, mid-elbow flexion and extension, while cycling at 5% and 15% of peak power output. While phase-dependent modulation of MEP and CMEP amplitudes occurred in the biceps brachii, there was no difference between flexion and extension for MEP amplitudes in the triceps brachii and CMEP amplitudes were higher during flexion than extension. Furthermore, MEP amplitudes in both biceps and triceps brachii increased with increased workload. CMEP amplitudes increased with higher workloads in the triceps brachii, but not biceps brachii, though the pattern of change in CMEPs was similar to MEPs. Differences between changes in CSE between the biceps and triceps brachii suggest that these antagonistic muscles may be under different neural control during arm cycling. Putative mechanisms are discussed.

Neuromuscular fatigue occurs when an individual's capacity to produce force or power is impaired. Repeated sprint exercise requires an individual to physically exert themselves at near-maximal to maximal capacity for multiple short-duration bouts, is extremely taxing on the neuromuscular system, and consequently leads to the rapid development of neuromuscular fatigue. During repeated sprint exercise the development of neuromuscular fatigue is underlined by a combination of central and peripheral fatigue. However, there are a number of methodological considerations that complicate the quantification of the development of neuromuscular fatigue. The main goal of this review is to synthesize the results from recent investigations on the development of neuromuscular fatigue during repeated sprint exercise. Hence, we summarize the overall development of neuromuscular fatigue, explain how recovery time may alter the development of neuromuscular fatigue, outline the contributions of peripheral and central fatigue to neuromuscular fatigue, and provide some methodological considerations for quantifying neuromuscular fatigue during repeated sprint exercise.

No abstract