HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: bjsm.2007.037929v1 42/7/585    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Google Scholar Articles by Chapman, D W Articles by Nosaka, K PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Chapman, D W Articles by Nosaka, K

Work and peak torque during eccentric exercise do not predict changes in markers of muscle damage

¹ School of Exercise, Biomedical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Australia
² Department of Sports Science, University of Technology of Malaysia, Malaysia
³ School of Health and Bioscience, University of East London, London, UK

Correspondence to:
Mr D W Chapman, Physiology Department, Australian Institute of Sport, PO Box 176, Belconnen, ACT, Australia 2616; dale.chapman{at}ausport.gov.au

Objectives: Large inter-subject variability in responses to eccentric exercise has been reported. This study investigated the hypothesis that the variability of changes in indirect markers of exercise-induced muscle damage (EIMD) would be explained by work performed and/or torque generated during eccentric exercise.

Methods: Subjects (n = 53) performed 60 maximal eccentric actions of the elbow flexors on an isokinetic dynamometer that forcibly extended the elbow joint from 60° to 180° at a constant velocity (90° s^–1). Markers of EIMD included maximal voluntary isometric contraction torque at 90° elbow flexion (MVC), range of motion, plasma creatine kinase activity and muscle soreness. Measurements were taken 2 days before, immediately after and 1–4 days post-exercise. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to examine relationships between exercise parameters (total work, change in total work, torque produced during exercise, change in peak torque) and markers of EIMD.

Results: Large inter-subject variability was evident for both work and torque during exercise, and changes in all markers of EIMD. Contrary to the hypothesis, total work (normalised for individual pre-exercise MVC) did not correlate significantly with any markers of EIMD, with the exception of MVC (r = 0.3). Total work performed and changes in total work showed higher correlations with some markers, but no r-values exceeded 0.4. Normalised exercise torque and the changes in peak torque during exercise were not correlated with changes in MVC, or other markers.

Conclusion: These results suggest the large inter-subject variability in responses to eccentric exercise is not associated with work performed or torque generated during eccentric exercise.