The role of learning and coordination in strength training

  • O. M. Rutherford
  • D. A. Jones
Article

Summary

The central changes associated with a period of strength training have been investigated in a group of 32 young healthy volunteers. Subjects participated in one of three 12 week training programmes, which required different degrees of skill and coordination. Study 1 consisted of unilateral isometric training of the quadriceps with the contralateral leg acting as a control, the apparatus providing firm back support and a lap strap. In Study 2 training consisted of unilateral concentric leg-extension with back support and hand-grips. In Study 3 subjects performed bilateral leg-extension with no back support. Measurements of maximum voluntary isometric strength were made at 2–3 week intervals and a continual record was kept of the weights lifted in Studies 2 and 3. The largest increase in isometric force was seen for the trained leg in Study 1 (approximately 40%). There was no significant change in strength in the contralateral untrained leg. In Studies 2 and 3 there was a large increase in training weights (about 200%) associated with smaller increase in isometric force (15–20%). It is concluded that a large part of the improvement in the ability to lift weights was due to an increased ability to coordinate other muscle groups involved in the movement such as those used to stabilise the body. The importance of these findings for athletic training and rehabilitation is discussed.

Key words

Strength training Task specific performance Isometric force Coordination Fixator muscles 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Belanger AY, McComas AJ (1981) Extent of motor-unit activation during effort. J Appl Physiol 51:1131–1135Google Scholar
  2. Chapman SJ, Edwards RHT, Greig C, Rutherford O (1984) Practical application of the twitch interpolation technique for the study of voluntary contraction of the quadriceps muscle in man. J Physiol 353:3 PGoogle Scholar
  3. Edwards RHT, Young A, Hosking GP, Jones DA (1977) Human skeletal muscle function: description of tests and normal values. Cli Sci Mol Med 52:283–290Google Scholar
  4. HÄkkinen K, Komi PV (1983) Electromyographic changes during strength training and detraining. Med Sci Sports Exerc 15:455–460Google Scholar
  5. Hellebrandt FA, Houtz SJ (1956) Mechanisms of muscle training in man: experimental demonstration of the overload principle. Phys Ther Rev 36:371–383Google Scholar
  6. Ikai M, Fukunaga T (1970) A study on training effect on strength per unit cross-sectional area of muscle by means of ultrasonic measurement. Int Z Angew Physiol 28:173–180Google Scholar
  7. Komi PV, Buskirk ER (1972) Effect of eccentric and concentric muscle conditioning on tension and electrical activity of human muscle. Ergonomics 15:417–434Google Scholar
  8. Moritani T, De Vries HA (1979) Neural factors versus hypertrophy in the time course of muscle strength gain. Am J Phys Med 58:115–130Google Scholar
  9. Rasch PJ, Morehouse LE (1957) Effect of static and dynamic exercises in muscular strength and hypertrophy. J Appl Physiol 11:29–34Google Scholar
  10. Sale D, MacDougall D (1981) Specificity in strength training: a review for the coach and athlete. Sports W-4Google Scholar
  11. Thorstensson A, Karlsson J, Viitasalo JHT, Luhtanen P, Komi PV (1976) Effect of strength training on EMG of human skeletal muscle. Acta Physiol Scand 98:232–236Google Scholar
  12. Young A, Stokes M, Round JM, Edwards RHT (1983) The effect of high resistance training on the strength and cross-sectional area of the human quadriceps. Eur J Clin Invest 13:411–417Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. M. Rutherford
    • 1
  • D. A. Jones
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MedicineUniversity College London, The Rayne InstituteLondonGreat Britain

Personalised recommendations