4.5 Article

Predictive value of strength loss as an indicator of muscle damage across multiple drop jumps

期刊

APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY NUTRITION AND METABOLISM
卷 36, 期 3, 页码 353-360

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING, NRC RESEARCH PRESS
DOI: 10.1139/H11-023

关键词

stretch-shortening cycle exercise; electrical stimulation; low-frequency fatigue; central activation; creatine kinase activity; muscle soreness; optimal angle shift

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of the present study was to compare the time-course of indirect symptoms of exercise-induced muscle damage after 50 and 100 drop jumps. A high-force, low intensity exercise protocol was used to avoid discrepancies regarding metabolic fatigue immediately after exercise. Healthy untrained men performed 50 (50 group, n = 13) or 100 (100 group, n = 13) intermittent (30-s interval between each jump) drop jumps, respectively, from the height of 0.5 m with a counter-movement to a 90 degrees knee flexion angle and immediate maximal rebound. Voluntary and electrically evoked knee extensor strength was assessed using an isokinetic dynamometer immediately before and at 2 min after exercise, as well as 3, 7, and 14 days after exercise. Creatine kinase (CK) activity and muscle soreness within 7 days after exercise were also determined. The results showed that the decrease in voluntary isometric and isokinetic torque as well as 100 Hz stimulation torque at the end of the 50 and 100 drop jumps was very similar, while substantial differences were found in low-frequency fatigue, shift in optimal knee joint angle, muscle soreness, and CK activity. In addition, there was slower muscle strength recovery after the 100 drop jumps. It is concluded that the predictive value of strength loss immediately after exercise as an indicator of muscle damage decreases as the jump number increases. Still, stimuli must be large enough for muscle torque to reach the reduction plateau. Therefore, magnitude of exercise becomes a major factor in accuracy of muscle damage predictions.

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