Hypertrophic Effects of Concentric vs. Eccentric Muscle Actions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Schoenfeld, BJ, Ogborn, DI, Vigotsky, AD, Franchi, MV, and Krieger, JW. Hypertrophic effects of concentric vs. eccentric muscle actions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 31(9): 2599-2608, 2017-Controversy exists as to whether different dynamic muscle actions produce divergent hypertrophic responses. The purpose of this paper was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the hypertrophic effects of concentric vs. eccentric training in healthy adults after regimented resistance training (RT). Studies were deemed eligible for inclusion if they met the following criteria: (a) were an experimental trial published in an English-language refereed journal; (b) directly compared concentric and eccentric actions without the use of external implements (i.e., blood pressure cuffs) and all other RT variables equivalent; (c) measured morphologic changes using biopsy, imaging (magnetic resonance imaging, computerized tomography, or ultrasound), bioelectrical impedance, and/or densitometry; (d) had a minimum duration of 6 weeks; and (e) used human participants without musculoskeletal injury or any health condition that could directly, or through the medications associated with the management of said condition, be expected to impact the hypertrophic response to resistance exercise. A systematic literature search determined that 15 studies met inclusion criteria. Results showed that eccentric muscle actions resulted in a greater effect size (ES) compared with concentric actions, but results did not reach statistical significance (ES difference = 0.25 ± 0.13; 95% confidence interval: -0.03 to 0.52; p = 0.076). The mean percent change in muscle growth across studies favored eccentric compared with concentric actions (10.0% vs. 6.8, respectively). The findings indicate the importance of including eccentric and concentric actions in a hypertrophy-oriented RT program, as both have shown to be effective in increasing muscle hypertrophy.

Comparison of Common Methodologies for the Determination of Knee Flexor Muscle Strength.

BACKGROUND: Knee flexion strength may hold important clinical implications for the determination of injury risk and readiness to return to sport following injury and orthopedic surgery. A wide array of testing methodologies and positioning options are available that require validation prior to clinical integration. The purpose of this study was to 1) investigate the validity and test-retest reliability of isometric knee flexion strength measured by a fixed handheld dynamometer (HHD) apparatus compared to a Biodex Dynamometer (BD), 2) determine the impact of body position (seated versus supine) and foot position (plantar- vs dorsiflexed) on knee flexion peak torque and 3) establish the validity and test-retest reliability of the NordBord Hamstring Dynamometer. STUDY DESIGN: Validity and reliability study, test-retest design. METHODS: Forty-four healthy participants (aged 27 ± 4.8 years) were assessed by two raters over two testing sessions separated by three to seven days. Maximal isometric knee flexion in the seated and supine position at 90o knee flexion was measured with both a BD and an externally fixed HHD with the foot held in maximal dorsiflexion or in plantar flexion. The validity and test-retest reliability of eccentric knee flexor strength on the NordBord hamstring dynamometer was assessed and compared with isometric strength on the BD. RESULTS: Level of agreement between HHD and BD torque demonstrated low bias (bias -0.33 Nm, SD of bias 13.5 Nm; 95% LOA 26.13 Nm, -26.79 Nm). Interrater reliability of the HHD was high, varying slightly with body position (ICC range 0.9-0.97, n=44). Isometric knee flexion torque was higher in the seated versus supine position and with the foot dorsiflexed versus plantarflexed. Eccentric knee flexion torque had a high degree of correlation with isometric knee flexion torque as measured via the BD (r=0.61-0.86). The NordBord had high test-retest reliability (0.993 (95%CI 0.983-0.997, n=19) for eccentric knee flexor strength, with an MDC95 of 26.88 N and 28.76 N for the left and right limbs respectively. CONCLUSION: Common measures of maximal isometric knee flexion display high levels of correlation and test-retest reliability. However, values obtained by an externally fixed HHD are not interchangeable with values obtained via the BD. Foot and body position should be considered and controlled during testing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b.

Effect of repetition duration during resistance training on muscle hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Maximizing the hypertrophic response to resistance training (RT) is thought to be best achieved by proper manipulation of exercise program variables including exercise selection, exercise order, length of rest intervals, intensity of maximal load, and training volume. An often overlooked variable that also may impact muscle growth is repetition duration. Duration amounts to the sum total of the concentric, eccentric, and isometric components of a repetition, and is predicated on the tempo at which the repetition is performed. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether alterations in repetition duration can amplify the hypertrophic response to RT. METHODS: Studies were deemed eligible for inclusion if they met the following criteria: (1) were an experimental trial published in an English-language refereed journal; (2) directly compared different training tempos in dynamic exercise using both concentric and eccentric repetitions; (3) measured morphologic changes via biopsy, imaging, and/or densitometry; (4) had a minimum duration of 6 weeks; (5) carried out training to muscle failure, defined as the inability to complete another concentric repetition while maintaining proper form; and (6) used human subjects who did not have a chronic disease or injury. A total of eight studies were identified that investigated repetition duration in accordance with the criteria outlined. RESULTS: Results indicate that hypertrophic outcomes are similar when training with repetition durations ranging from 0.5 to 8 s. CONCLUSIONS: From a practical standpoint it would seem that a fairly wide range of repetition durations can be employed if the primary goal is to maximize muscle growth. Findings suggest that training at volitionally very slow durations (>10s per repetition) is inferior from a hypertrophy standpoint, although a lack of controlled studies on the topic makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions.

Daily chocolate milk consumption does not enhance the effect of resistance training in young and old men: a randomized controlled trial.

Older and younger men completed 12 weeks of resistance training and ingested either 500 mL of chocolate milk or placebo daily. Training increased strength in both age groups (p < 0.05), with no supplementation effect. Type I muscle fibre area increased with training (p = 0.008) with no effect of age or supplementation. Type II fibre area increased (p = 0.014) in young men only with no supplementation effect. Chocolate milk did not enhance skeletal muscle hypertrophy following training.