4.4 Article

Muscle damage responses and adaptations to eccentric-overload resistance exercise in men and women

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 114, 期 5, 页码 1075-1084

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-014-2836-7

关键词

1 RM; Power; Muscle hypertrophy; CK; LDH

资金

  1. Consejeria de Educacion, Junta de Castilla y Leon, Spain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study assessed markers of muscle damage and training adaptations to eccentric-overload flywheel resistance exercise (RE) in men and women. Dynamic strength (1 RM), jump performance, maximal power at different percentages of 1 RM, and muscle mass in three different portions of the thigh were assessed in 16 men and 16 women before and after 6 weeks (15 sessions) of flywheel supine squat RE training. Plasma creatine kinase (CK) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) concentrations were measured before, 24, 48 and 72 h after the first and the last training session. After training, increases in 1 RM were somewhat greater (interaction P < 0.001) in men (25 %) than in women (20 %). Squat and drop jump height and power performance at 50, 60, 70 and 80 % of 1 RM increased after training in both sexes (P < 0.05). Power improvement at 80 % of 1 RM was greater (interaction P < 0.02) in men than women. Muscle mass increased similar to 5 % in both groups (P < 0.05). CK increased in men after the first training session (P < 0.001), whereas the response in women was unaltered. In both sexes, LDH concentration was greater after the first training session compared with basal values (P < 0.05). After the last session, CK and LDH remained at baseline in both groups. These results suggest that although improvements in maximal strength and power at high loads may be slightly greater for men, eccentric-overload RE training induces comparable and favorable gains in strength, power, and muscle mass in both men and women. Equally important, it appears muscle damage does not interfere with the adaptations triggered by this training paradigm.

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

4.4
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