Cross-education effects of unilateral accentuated eccentric isoinertial resistance training on lean mass and function

Cross-education of lower limb muscle strength following resistance exercise training in males and females: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cross-education describes the training of one limb that leads to performance enhancements in the contralateral untrained limb, driven by neural changes rather than muscle adaptation. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of cross-education (vs. a control group) via resistance exercise training (RET) for improving muscle strength in the untrained lower limb of healthy males and females. A literature search from inception to September 2023 was conducted using MEDLINE (via PubMed), the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), Web of Science (Core Database), Scopus, EBSCO-host, and Ovid-EMBASE. Independent screening, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted. The measured outcomes were change in one-repetition maximum (1-RM) load, maximum voluntary contraction (MVC), and concentric, eccentric and isometric peak torque. Change in muscle structure (pennation angle and muscle thickness) was also analysed. A total of 29 studies were included. The pooled effect size from the random-effects model shows that cross-education significantly increased 1-RM compared to the control group (standardised mean difference (SMD): 0.59, 95% CI: 0.22-0.97; P = 0.002). Cross-education also significantly improved MVC (SMD: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.16-0.94; P = 0.006), concentric (SMD: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.39-0.84; P < 0.00001), eccentric (SMD: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.13-0.64; P = 0.003) and isometric (SMD: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.26-0.64; P < 0.00001) peak torque, each compared to the control group. When RET was categorised as eccentric or concentric, subgroup analysis showed that only eccentric training was associated with significantly increased isometric peak torque via cross-education (SMD: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.13-0.61; P = 0.003) (concentric, SMD: 0.33, 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.74; P = 0.12). This systematic review and meta-analysis emphasise the potency of cross-education for improving lower limb muscle strength. These findings have potential implications for clinical situations of impaired unilateral limb function (e.g., limb-casting or stroke). Future work exploring the mechanisms facilitating these enhancements will help to develop optimised rehabilitation protocols.

Force Production and Electromyographic Activity during Different Flywheel Deadlift Exercises

This study aimed to characterize and compare force production and muscle activity during four flywheel deadlift exercises (bilateral [Bi] vs. unilateral [Uni]) with different loading conditions (vertical [Ver] vs. horizontal [Hor]). Twenty-three team-sport athletes underwent assessments for exercise kinetics (hand-grip force), along with surface electromyography (sEMG) of the proximal (BFProx) and medial biceps femoris (BFMed), semitendinosus (ST), and gluteus medius (GM). Mean and peak force were highest (p < 0.001) in Bi + Ver compared with Bi + Hor, Uni + Ver, and Uni + Hor. Although no significant differences were observed between Bi + Hor and Uni + Ver, both variants showed higher (p < 0.001) average force and peak eccentric force when compared with Uni + Hor. The presence of eccentric overload was only observed in the vertically loaded variants. Bi + Ver and Uni + Ver showed higher (p < 0.05) sEMG levels in BFProx and BFMed compared with the Uni + Hor variant. In addition, Uni + Ver registered the largest GM and ST sEMG values. In conclusion, the vertical variants of the flywheel deadlift exercise led to higher muscle force production and sEMG compared with their horizontal counterparts. Both Bi + Ver and Uni + Ver may be effective in promoting an increase in hamstring muscles activity and muscle force at long muscle length, while the Uni + Ver variant may be more effective in promoting GM and ST involvement.

Exercise prescription and strategies to promote the cross-education of strength: a scoping review

The cross-education of strength is moderated by exercise design and prescription in clinical and non-clinical populations. This review synthesizes the available evidence regarding exercise design strategies for unilateral resistance training and provides evidence-based recommendations for the prescription of unilateral training to maximize the cross-education of strength. Greater insights regarding the timing and effectiveness of cross-education interventions in clinical scenarios will strengthen the use of unilateral resistance training for individuals who may benefit from its use.

Effects of submaximal and supramaximal accentuated eccentric loading on mass and function

Introduction: Eccentric-overload (EO) resistance training emerges as an alternative to more optimally prescribe intensity relative to the force generation capabilities of the eccentric muscle contraction. Given the difficulties to individually prescribe absolute eccentric loads relative to each person's eccentric ability, setting the load relative to the concentric one-repetition maximum (1-RM) is the most used EO training approach. Therefore, we investigated the effects of submaximal and supramaximal (i.e., eccentric loads above 100% of 1-RM) accentuated eccentric training on changes in lean mass, anabolic hormonal responses and muscle function. Methods: Physically active university students (n = 27) were randomly assigned to two training groups. Participants in the training groups performed dominant leg isotonic training twice a week for 10 weeks (four sets of eight repetitions). Isotonic resistance was generated by an electric-motor device at two different percentages of 1-RM for the eccentric phase; 90% submaximal load, SUB group) and 120% (supramaximal load, SUPRA group). Concentric load was the same for both groups (30% of 1-RM). Changes in total thigh lean mass (TTLM), anabolic hormonal responses (growth hormone, IGF-1, IL-6, and total testosterone), unilateral leg-press 1-RM, maximal voluntary isometric contractions (MVIC), local muscle endurance (XRM), muscle power at 40 (PP40), 60 (PP60) and 80% (PP80) of the 1-RM, and unilateral vertical jump height before and after training were compared between groups. Results: After training, both SUB and SUPRA groups showed similar increases (p < 0.05) in MVIC (19.2% and 19.6%), XRM (53.8% and 23.8%), PP40 (16.2% and 15.7%), TTLM (2.5% and 4.2%), IGF-1 (10.0% and 14.1%) and IL-6 (58.6% and 28.6%). However, increases in 1-RM strength (16.3%) and unilateral vertical jump height (10.0%-13.4%) were observed for SUPRA only. Indeed, SUPRA was shown to be more favorable than SUB training for increasing 1-RM [ES = 0.77 (1.49-0.05)]. Unilateral muscle power at medium and high intensity (10.2% and 10.5%) also increased in SUB but without significant differences between groups. Discussion: Similar functional and structural effects were demonstrated after 10 weeks EO training with submaximal and supramaximal eccentric loads. Although supramaximal loading might be superior for increasing 1-RM, the use of this approach does not appear to be necessary in healthy, active individuals.

Use of concentric linear velocity to monitor flywheel exercise load

Purpose: To propose the concentric linear velocity measurement as a valid method to quantify load and individualise the prescription of flywheel training, we investigated the relationship between inertial load and mean concentric linear velocity (MCLV) during the flywheel squat exercise in a wide spectrum of intensities. In addition, we compared MCLV and subjective rating of perceived exertion (RPE) after each load.

Methods: Twenty-five physically active men volunteered for this study (26.5 ± 2.9 years, 179.5 ± 4.2 cm, 81.6 ± 8.6 kg). After familiarization, all participants performed two inertial progressive load tests on separated days to determine the flywheel load-velocity profile and its reliability. Each participant performed 5 set of 6 repetitions of the flywheel squat exercise with different inertial loads (0.047, 0.104, 0.161, 0.245, 0.321 kg m²) selected in a counterbalanced and randomized order for each testing day. Average MCLV and RPE for each load were compared.

Results: The inter-session intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) showed values above 0.9 in all the included outcomes (MCLV: ICC = 0.91; RPE: ICC = 0.93). A significant correlation (p < 0.01, R² = 0.80) between inertial load and MCLV was found. Similarly, significant correlation models (p < 0.01) were observed between RPE and load (R² = 0.87) and (R² = 0.71) between RPE and MCLV.

Conclusion: The control of MCLV during flywheel exercise can be proposed as a valid method to quantify load and to individualize the prescription of flywheel training. In addition, RPE responses have demonstrated significant correlations with load and velocity. Therefore, RPE has been proposed as a valid and reliable alternative to control flywheel training.