Cross-sectional and longitudinal uses of isoinertial, isometric, and isokinetic dynamometry

The purposes of this investigation were to assess whether maximal isoinertial (triceps pushdown [TP] and triceps extension [TE]), isometric and isokinetic (1.04, 2.08, 3.14, 4.16, and 5.20 rad.s-1) forearm extension strength measures: 1) presented statistical generality when they were correlated pri...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Medicine and science in sports and exercise 1996-09, Vol.28 (9), p.1180-1187
Main Authors: ABERNETHY, P. J, JÜRIMÄE, J
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adaptation, Physiological
Adult
Biological and medical sciences
Elbow - physiology
Exercise - physiology
Factor Analysis, Statistical
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Humans
Male
Muscle, Skeletal - physiology
Space life sciences
Vertebrates: body movement. Posture. Locomotion. Flight. Swimming. Physical exercise. Rest. Sports
Weight Lifting - physiology
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The purposes of this investigation were to assess whether maximal isoinertial (triceps pushdown [TP] and triceps extension [TE]), isometric and isokinetic (1.04, 2.08, 3.14, 4.16, and 5.20 rad.s-1) forearm extension strength measures: 1) presented statistical generality when they were correlated prior to and following 4, 8, and 12 wk of resistance training; 2) were similarly affected by training; and 3) presented statistical generality when their changes as a consequence of training were intercorrelated. Fifteen men (11 experimental and 4 controls) without a history of resistance training participated in the study. Training involved four sets of 8-12 repetitions, each followed by 90-s recovery, at 70-75% one repetition maximum (1RM), three times a week, for 12 wk. Training incorporated the TP, close-grip bench press, and triceps kickback exercises. Prior to and after 4, 8, and 12 wk of training, the intercorrelations among the TP, isometric, and isokinetic indices almost always achieved statistical generality (i.e., r2 > 0.5). It was concluded that the strength measures generally discriminated similarly between subjects. However, the sensitivity of the strength measures to the effects of training were dissimilar. While all strength indices increased with the training, the timing (isoinertial prior to isometric and isokinetic adaptations) and magnitude (TP > TE > isometric > isokinetic) of the adaptations varied greatly. None of the intercorrelations between changes in the strength indices achieved statistical generality. Furthermore, factor (F)-analyses on these changes indicated that in the initial and later stages of training, there were three and four discrete factors, respectively, accounting for strength development. These factors were thought to reflect differential effects of training on the structural, neural (including learning), and mechanical mechanisms underpinning each strength index. Possible applications of this research design in better understanding strength development were also canvassed.
ISSN:0195-9131
1530-0315
DOI:10.1097/00005768-199609000-00015