The time course of cross-education during short-term isometric strength training
This study examined the time course of contralateral adaptations in maximal isometric strength (MVC), rate of force development (RFD), and rate of electromyographic (EMG) rise (RER) during 4 weeks of unilateral isometric strength training with the non-dominant elbow flexors.
Twenty participants were allocated to strength training (n = 10, three female, two left hand dominant) or control (n = 10, three female, two left hand dominant) groups. Both groups completed testing at baseline and following each week of training to evaluate MVC strength, EMG amplitude, RFD and RER at early (RFD50, RER50) and late (RFD200, RER200) contraction phases for the dominant ‘untrained’ elbow flexors. The training group completed 11 unilateral isometric training sessions across 4 weeks.
The contralateral improvements for MVC strength (P < 0.01) and RFD200 (P = 0.017) were evidenced after 2 weeks, whereas RFD50 (P < 0.01) and RER50 (P = 0.02) showed significant improvements after 3 weeks. Each of the dependent variables was significantly (P < 0.05) greater than baseline values at the end of the training intervention for the trained arm. No changes in any of the variables were observed for the control group (P > 0.10).
Unilateral isometric strength training for 2–3 weeks can produce substantial increases in isometric muscle strength and RFD for both the trained and untrained arms. These data have implications for rehabilitative exercise design and prescription.
KeywordsContralateral adaptations Unilateral strength training Rate of force development Rate of activation
Maximal voluntary contraction
Rate of EMG rise
Rate of force development
JC and XY conceived and designed the study. JD wrote the software for data analysis and created the figures. JC conducted experiments, analyzed data, and drafted the first version of the manuscript. XY, MS, MB, and JD critically revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Ebersole KT, Housh TJ, Johnson GO, Perry SR, Bull AJ, Cramer JT (2002) Mechanomyographic and electromyographic responses to unilateral isometric training. J Strength Cond Res 16:192–201Google Scholar
- Farthing JP (2009) Cross-education of strength depends on limb dominance: implications for theory and application. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 37:179–187Google Scholar
- Green LA, Gabriel DA (2018b) The effect of unilateral training on contralateral limb strength in young, older, and patient populations: a meta-analysis of cross education. Phys Ther Rev 1:1–12Google Scholar
- Hermens HJ, Freriks B, Merletti R, Stegeman D, Blok J, Rau G, Disselhorst-Klug C, Hägg G (1999) European recommendations for surface electromyography. RRD, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
- Hester GM, Pope ZK, Magrini MA, Colquhoun RJ, Curiel AB, Estrada CA, Olmos AA, DeFreitas JM (2018) Age does not attenuate maximal velocity adaptations in the ipsilateral and contralateral limbs during unilateral resistance training. J Aging Phys Activ 1:1–28Google Scholar
- Keppel G (1991) Design and analysis: a researcher’s handbook, 3rd edn. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
- Moritani T, deVries HA (1979) Neural factors versus hypertrophy in the time course of muscle strength gain. Am J Phys Med 58(3):115–130Google Scholar
- Scripture EW, Smith TL, Brown EM (1894) On the education of muscular control and power. Stud Yale Psychol Lab 2:114–119Google Scholar
- Stevens JP (2007) Intermediate Statistics, 3rd edn. Taylor & Francis Group, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Sun Y, Ledwell NM, Boyd LA, Zehr EP (2018) Unilateral wrist extension training after stroke improves strength and neural plasticity in both arms. Exp Brain Res. 237:1–13Google Scholar
- Weir JP (2005) Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res 19:231–240Google Scholar