Recovery response comparisons between variable resistance and long and short muscle length isometric exercise.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 PHYSIOLOGY
Giuseppe Rosaci, Franco Merni, Samuele Marcora, Sandro Bartolomei
{"title":"Recovery response comparisons between variable resistance and long and short muscle length isometric exercise.","authors":"Giuseppe Rosaci, Franco Merni, Samuele Marcora, Sandro Bartolomei","doi":"10.1007/s00421-025-05958-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Isometric exercises at long muscle length (LML) and short muscle length (SML), and variable resistance (VAR) exercises, are effective to achieve neuromuscular and morphological adaptation. To date, no studies have compared pectoralis major muscle recovery after these modalities. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the muscle damage and recovery after LML, SML, and VAR in trained men. Twelve participants (age: 25 ± 4 y, height: 178 ± 7 cm, body weight: 82 ± 10 kg, training experience: 7 ± 4 y) completed the protocols in a random order with a 10-day washout period. Assessments occurred pre-exercise (BL) and at 15 min (P-15 min), 24 h (P-24 h), and 48 h (P-48 h) post-exercise, evaluating muscle thickness (MT), echo intensity (EI), isometric peak force, average power at bench press throw power test (BPT), and muscle soreness. Blood samples were also collected at BL and at P-24 h, and creatine phosphokinase (CPK) was measured. Changes in MT at P-15 min and P-24 h were more elevated following VAR compared to SML and LML (p = 0.003; η<sup>2</sup><sub>p</sub> = 0.271). No condition × time interactions were found for EI (p = 0.233), peak force (p > 0.319), BPT (p = 0.614), and muscle soreness (p = 0.115). The EI, peak force, and BPT parameters returned to baseline at P-24 h, while muscle soreness persisted for 48 h without any significant differences between protocols. All exercise protocols resulted in similar elevations of CPK (p = 0.727; 387 ± 159, 396 ± 199 and 362 ± 170 U/L for LML, SML and VAR, respectively). In conclusion, all exercise protocols cause muscle damage. However, the mechanical and metabolic stress of VAR may prolong the recovery of initial muscle architecture compared to LML and SML.</p>","PeriodicalId":12005,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Applied Physiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Applied Physiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-025-05958-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Isometric exercises at long muscle length (LML) and short muscle length (SML), and variable resistance (VAR) exercises, are effective to achieve neuromuscular and morphological adaptation. To date, no studies have compared pectoralis major muscle recovery after these modalities. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the muscle damage and recovery after LML, SML, and VAR in trained men. Twelve participants (age: 25 ± 4 y, height: 178 ± 7 cm, body weight: 82 ± 10 kg, training experience: 7 ± 4 y) completed the protocols in a random order with a 10-day washout period. Assessments occurred pre-exercise (BL) and at 15 min (P-15 min), 24 h (P-24 h), and 48 h (P-48 h) post-exercise, evaluating muscle thickness (MT), echo intensity (EI), isometric peak force, average power at bench press throw power test (BPT), and muscle soreness. Blood samples were also collected at BL and at P-24 h, and creatine phosphokinase (CPK) was measured. Changes in MT at P-15 min and P-24 h were more elevated following VAR compared to SML and LML (p = 0.003; η2p = 0.271). No condition × time interactions were found for EI (p = 0.233), peak force (p > 0.319), BPT (p = 0.614), and muscle soreness (p = 0.115). The EI, peak force, and BPT parameters returned to baseline at P-24 h, while muscle soreness persisted for 48 h without any significant differences between protocols. All exercise protocols resulted in similar elevations of CPK (p = 0.727; 387 ± 159, 396 ± 199 and 362 ± 170 U/L for LML, SML and VAR, respectively). In conclusion, all exercise protocols cause muscle damage. However, the mechanical and metabolic stress of VAR may prolong the recovery of initial muscle architecture compared to LML and SML.

可变阻力与长、短肌肉长度等距运动的恢复反应比较。
长肌长(LML)和短肌长(SML)的等长训练以及可变阻力(VAR)训练是实现神经肌肉和形态适应的有效方法。到目前为止,还没有研究比较这些方式后胸大肌的恢复情况。因此,本研究旨在比较训练男性LML、SML和VAR后的肌肉损伤和恢复情况。12名参与者(年龄:25±4岁,身高:178±7厘米,体重:82±10公斤,训练经验:7±4岁)按随机顺序完成方案,并有10天的洗脱期。在运动前(BL)、运动后15分钟(P-15分钟)、24小时(P-24小时)和48小时(P-48小时)进行评估,评估肌肉厚度(MT)、回声强度(EI)、等长峰值力、卧推抛力测试的平均力量(BPT)和肌肉酸痛。在BL和P-24 h取血,测定肌酸磷酸激酶(CPK)。与SML和LML相比,VAR后15 min和24 h MT的变化更大(p = 0.003; η2p = 0.271)。EI (p = 0.233)、峰值力(p > 0.319)、BPT (p = 0.614)和肌肉酸痛(p = 0.115)未发现条件与时间的相互作用。EI,峰值力和BPT参数在P-24小时恢复到基线,而肌肉酸痛持续48小时,两种方案之间没有任何显着差异。所有运动方案均导致相似的CPK升高(p = 0.727; LML、SML和VAR分别为387±159、396±199和362±170 U/L)。总之,所有的运动方案都会造成肌肉损伤。然而,与LML和SML相比,VAR的机械和代谢应力可能会延长初始肌肉结构的恢复时间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
6.70%
发文量
227
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Applied Physiology (EJAP) aims to promote mechanistic advances in human integrative and translational physiology. Physiology is viewed broadly, having overlapping context with related disciplines such as biomechanics, biochemistry, endocrinology, ergonomics, immunology, motor control, and nutrition. EJAP welcomes studies dealing with physical exercise, training and performance. Studies addressing physiological mechanisms are preferred over descriptive studies. Papers dealing with animal models or pathophysiological conditions are not excluded from consideration, but must be clearly relevant to human physiology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信