Muscle damage induced by maximal eccentric exercise of the elbow flexors after 3-week immobilization.

The present study investigated the effects of a 3-week immobilization (IM) on muscle damage induced by maximal eccentric exercise (MaxEC) to test the hypothesis that the IM would make muscles prone to muscle damage. Young healthy sedentary men were pseudo-randomly assigned to IM or control group (n = 12/group). Non-dominant arms of the IM group participants were immobilized at 90° elbow flexion by a cast for 21 days. All participants performed MaxEC consisting of five sets of six elbow flexor contractions by lowering a dumbbell set at 100% of pre-exercise maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVC) strength of the non-dominant arm. This was performed at 2 days after the cast removal for the IM group. MVC torque, range of motion (ROM), muscle thickness (MT), muscle hardness, position sense (PS), and joint reaction angle (JRA) of the elbow flexors were measured at baseline, post-immobilization, and before, immediately after, and one to 5 days after MaxEC. The IM decreased MVC torque (-17 ± 2%), ROM (-2 ± 1%), MT (-7 ± 3%), and JRA (-12 ± 6%), and increased in muscle hardness (20 ± 6%) and PS (11 ± 2%) (p < 0.05). Changes in MVC (e.g., 2 days: -40 ± 5 vs. -30 ± 9%), ROM (2 days: -11 ± 2 vs. -9 ± 3%), muscle soreness (peak: 63 ± 22 vs. 48 ± 14 mm), plasma CK activity (peak: 7820 ± 4011 vs. 4980 ± 1363 IU/L), PS (maximal change: -23 ± 2 vs. -18 ± 3%), and JRA (maximal change: -37 ± 4 vs. -26 ± 3%) after MaxEC were greater (p < 0.05) for the IM than control group. These results supported the hypothesis and showed that the IM made the muscles more vulnerable to muscle damage induced by eccentric exercise.

Effects of Unilateral Eccentric versus Concentric Training of Nonimmobilized Arm during Immobilization.

INTRODUCTION: The present study tested the hypothesis that eccentric training (ET) of nonimmobilized arm would attenuate negative effects of immobilization and provide greater protective effects against muscle damage induced by eccentric exercise after immobilization, when compared with concentric training (CT). METHODS: Sedentary young men were placed to ET, CT, or control group ( n = 12 per group), and their nondominant arms were immobilized for 3 wk. During the immobilization period, the ET and CT groups performed five sets of six dumbbell curl eccentric-only and concentric-only contractions, respectively, at 20%-80% of maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVCiso) strength over six sessions. MVCiso torque, root-mean square (RMS) of electromyographic activity during MVCiso, and bicep brachii muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) were measured before and after immobilization for both arms. All participants performed 30 eccentric contractions of the elbow flexors (30EC) by the immobilized arm after the cast was removed. Several indirect muscle damage markers were measured before, immediately after, and for 5 d after 30EC. RESULTS: ET increased MVCiso (17% ± 7%), RMS (24% ± 8%), and CSA (9% ± 2%) greater ( P < 0.05) than CT (6% ± 4%, 9% ± 4%, 3% ± 2%) for the trained arm. The control group showed decreases in MVCiso (-17% ± 2%), RMS (-26% ± 6%), and CSA (-12% ± 3%) for the immobilized arm, but these changes were attenuated greater ( P < 0.05) by ET (3% ± 3%, -0.1% ± 2%, 0.1% ± 0.3%) than CT (-4% ± 2%, -4% ± 2%, -1.3% ± 0.4%). Changes in all muscle damage markers after 30EC were smaller ( P < 0.05) for the ET and CT than the control group, and ET than the CT group (e.g., peak plasma creatine kinase activity: ET, 860 ± 688 IU·L -1 ; CT, 2390 ± 1104 IU·L -1 ; control, 7819 ± 4011 IU·L -1 ). CONCLUSIONS: These results showed that ET of the nonimmobilized arm was effective for eliminating the negative effects of immobilization and attenuating eccentric exercise-induced muscle damage after immobilization.