4.5 Article

Comparison between voluntary and stimulated contractions of the quadriceps femoris for growth hormone response and muscle damage

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 104, 期 1, 页码 75-81

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00335.2007

关键词

neuromuscular electrical stimulation; isometric strength; blood lactate; creatine kinase; muscle soreness

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to compare voluntary and stimulated exercise for changes in muscle strength, growth hormone (GH), blood lactate, and markers of muscle damage. Nine healthy men had two leg press exercise bouts separated by 2 wk. In the first bout, the quadriceps muscles were stimulated by biphasic rectangular pulses (75 Hz, duration 400 mu s, on-off ratio 6.25-20 s) with current amplitude being consistently increased throughout 40 contractions at maximal tolerable level. In the second bout, 40 voluntary isometric contractions were performed at the same leg press force output as the first bout. Maximal voluntary isometric strength was measured before and after the bouts, and serum GH and blood lactate concentrations were measured before, during, and after exercise. Serum creatine kinase (CK) activity and muscle soreness were assessed before, immediately after, and 24, 48, and 72 h after exercise. Maximal voluntary strength decreased significantly (P < 0.05) after both bouts, but the magnitude of the decrease was significantly (P < 0.05) greater for the stimulated contractions (-22%) compared with the voluntary contractions (-9%). Increases in serum GH and lactate concentrations were significantly (P < 0.05) larger after the stimulation compared with the voluntary exercise. Increases in serum CK activity and muscle soreness were also significantly (P < 0.05) greater for the stimulation than voluntary exercise. It was concluded that a single bout of electrical stimulation exercise resulted in greater GH response and muscle damage than voluntary exercise.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据