Advertisement

European Journal of Applied Physiology

, Volume 119, Issue 6, pp 1395–1407 | Cite as

The time course of cross-education during short-term isometric strength training

  • Joshua C. CarrEmail author
  • Xin Ye
  • Matt S. Stock
  • Michael G. Bemben
  • Jason M. DeFreitas
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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).

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

Contralateral adaptations Unilateral strength training Rate of force development Rate of activation 

Abbreviations

EMG

Electromyography

MVC

Maximal voluntary contraction

RER

Rate of EMG rise

RFD

Rate of force development

Notes

Author contributions

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.

References

  1. Aagaard P, Simonsen EB, Andersen JL, Magnusson P, Dyhre-Poulsen P (2002) Increased rate of force development and neural drive of human skeletal muscle following resistance training. J Appl Physiol 93:1318–1326Google Scholar
  2. Adamson M, MacQuaide N, Helgerud J, Hoff J, Kemi OJ (2008) Unilateral arm strength training improves contralateral peak force and rate of force development. Eur J Appl Physiol 103:553–559Google Scholar
  3. Andersen LL, Aagaard P (2006) Influence of maximal muscle strength and intrinsic muscle contractile properties on contractile rate of force development. Eur J Appl Physiol 96:46–52Google Scholar
  4. Andersen LL, Andersen JL, Zebis MK, Aagaard P (2010) Early and late rate of force development: differential adaptive responses to resistance training? Scand J Med Sci Spor. 1:e162–e169Google Scholar
  5. Andrushko JW, Gould LA, Farthing JP (2018a) Contralateral effects of unilateral training: sparing of muscle strength and size after immobilization. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab.  https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2018-0073 Google Scholar
  6. Andrushko JW, Lanovaz JL, Björkman KM, Kontulainen SA, Farthing JP (2018b) Unilateral strength training leads to muscle-specific sparing effects during opposite homologous limb immobilization. J Appl Physiol 124:866–876Google Scholar
  7. Barry BK, Warman GE, Carson RG (2005) Age-related differences in rapid muscle activation after rate of force development training of the elbow flexors. Exp Brain Res 162:122–132Google Scholar
  8. Barss TS, Klarner T, Pearcey GE, Sun Y, Zehr EP (2018) Time course of inter-limb strength transfer after unilateral handgrip training. J Appl Physiol 125(5):1594–1608Google Scholar
  9. Beck TW (2013) The importance of a priori sample size estimation in strength and conditioning research. J Strength Cond Res 27:2323–2337Google Scholar
  10. Behm DG, Sale DG (1993) Intended rather than actual movement velocity determines velocity-specific training response. J Appl Physiol 74:359–368Google Scholar
  11. Blazevich AJ, Horne S, Cannavan D, Coleman DR, Aagaard P (2008) Effect of contraction mode of slow-speed resistance training on the maximum rate of force development in the human quadriceps. Muscle Nerve 38:1046–1133Google Scholar
  12. Boyes NG, Yee P, Lanovaz JL, Farthing JP (2017) Cross-education after high-frequency versus low-frequency volume-matched handgrip training. Muscle Nerve 56:689–695Google Scholar
  13. Brown AB, McCartney N, Sale DG (1990) Positive adaptations to weight-lifting training in the elderly. J Appl Physiol 69:1725–1733Google Scholar
  14. Collins BW, Lockyer EJ, Button DC (2017) Prescribing cross-education of strength: is it time? Muscle Nerve 56:684–685Google Scholar
  15. Coombs TA, Frazer AK, Horvath DM, Pearce AJ, Howatson G, Kidgell DJ (2016) Cross-education of wrist extensor strength is not influenced by non-dominant training in right-handers. Eur J Appl Physiol 116:1757–1769Google Scholar
  16. Del Balso C, Cafarelli E (2007) Adaptations in the activation of human skeletal muscle induced by short-term isometric resistance training. J Appl Physiol 103:402–411Google Scholar
  17. Dragert K, Zehr EP (2013) High-intensity unilateral dorsiflexor resistance training results in bilateral neuromuscular plasticity after stroke. Exp Brain Res 225:93–104Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Farthing JP (2009) Cross-education of strength depends on limb dominance: implications for theory and application. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 37:179–187Google Scholar
  20. Farthing JP, Chilibeck PD (2003) The effects of eccentric and concentric training at different velocities on muscle hypertrophy. Eur J Appl Physiol 89:578–586Google Scholar
  21. Farthing JP, Borowsky R, Chilibeck PD, Binsted G, Sarty GE (2007) Neuro-physiological adaptations associated with cross-education of strength. Brain Topogr 20:77–88Google Scholar
  22. Farthing JP, Krentz JR, Magnus CR (2009) Strength training the free limb attenuates strength loss during unilateral immobilization. J Appl Physiol 106:830–836Google Scholar
  23. Green LA, Gabriel DA (2018a) The cross education of strength and skill following unilateral strength training in the upper and lower limbs. J Neurophysiol.  https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00116.2018 Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Hendy AM, Spittle M, Kidgell DJ (2012) Cross education and immobilisation: mechanisms and implications for injury rehabilitation. J Sci Med Sport 15:94–101Google Scholar
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. Houston ME, Froese EA, St PV, Green HJ, Ranney DA (1983) Muscle performance, morphology and metabolic capacity during strength training and detraining: a one leg model. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 51(1):25–35Google Scholar
  29. Keppel G (1991) Design and analysis: a researcher’s handbook, 3rd edn. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  30. Kim CY, Lee JS, Kim HD, Kim JS (2015) The effect of progressive task-oriented training on a supplementary tilt table on lower extremity muscle strength and gait recovery in patients with hemiplegic stroke. Gait Posture 41:425–430Google Scholar
  31. Komi PV, Viitasalo JT, Rauramaa R, Vihko V (1978) Effect of isometric strength training on mechanical, electrical, and metabolic aspects of muscle function. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 40:45–55Google Scholar
  32. Lee M, Gandevia SC, Carroll TJ (2009) Unilateral strength training increases voluntary activation of the opposite untrained limb. Clin Neurophysiol 120:802–808Google Scholar
  33. Lee M, Hinder MR, Gandevia SC, Carroll TJ (2010) The ipsilateral motor cortex contributes to cross-limb transfer of performance gains after ballistic motor practice. J Physiol 588:201–212Google Scholar
  34. Maffiuletti NA, Aagaard P, Blazevich AJ, Folland J, Tillin N, Duchateau J (2016) Rate of force development: physiological and methodological considerations. Eur J Appl Physiol 116(6):1091–1116Google Scholar
  35. Magnus CR, Arnold CM, Johnston G, Haas VDB, Basran J, Krentz JR, Farthing JP (2013) Cross-education for improving strength and mobility after distal radius fractures: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 94(7):1247–1255Google Scholar
  36. Manca A, Hortobágyi T, Rothwell JC, Deriu F (2018) Neurophysiological adaptations in the untrained side in conjunction with cross-education of muscle strength: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Appl Physiol 124:1502–1518Google Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Narici MV, Roi GS, Landoni L, Minetti AE, Cerretelli P (1989) Changes in force, cross-sectional area and neural activation during strength training and detraining of the human quadriceps. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 59:310–319Google Scholar
  39. Peltonen H, Walker S, Hackney AC, Avela J, Häkkinen K (2018) Increased rate of force development during periodized maximum strength and power training is highly individual. Eur J Appl Physiol 118:1033–1042Google Scholar
  40. Ruddy KL, Carson RG (2013) Neural pathways mediating cross education of motor function. Front Hum Neurosci 7:397Google Scholar
  41. Ruddy KL, Rudolf AK, Kalkman B, King M, Daffertshofer A, Carroll TJ, Carson RG (2016) Neural adaptations associated with interlimb transfer in a ballistic wrist flexion task. Front Hum Neurosci 10:204Google Scholar
  42. Ruddy KL, Leemans A, Woolley DG, Wenderoth N, Carson RG (2017) Structural and functional cortical connectivity mediating cross education of motor function. J Neurosci 37:2555–2564Google Scholar
  43. Scripture EW, Smith TL, Brown EM (1894) On the education of muscular control and power. Stud Yale Psychol Lab 2:114–119Google Scholar
  44. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86(2):420Google Scholar
  45. Stevens JP (2007) Intermediate Statistics, 3rd edn. Taylor & Francis Group, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Tillin NA, Pain MT, Folland JP (2012) Short-term training for explosive strength causes neural and mechanical adaptations. Exp Physiol 97:630–641Google Scholar
  48. Van Cutsem M, Duchateau J, Hainaut K (1998) Changes in single motor unit behaviour contribute to the increase in contraction speed after dynamic training in humans. J Physiol 513:295–305Google Scholar
  49. Weir JP (2005) Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res 19:231–240Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Health & Exercise ScienceUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA
  2. 2.Department of Health, Exercise Science, & Recreation ManagementUniversity of MississippiUniversityUSA
  3. 3.School of Kinesiology and Physical TherapyUniversity of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA
  4. 4.Applied Neuromuscular Physiology LaboratoryOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA

Personalised recommendations