Scholarlink

Purpose <p>We compared the effects of high-intensity interval eccentric (EC) versus concentric cycling (CC) training on aerobic capacity, muscle function and morphology.</p> Methods <p>Healthy men (19–56&#xa0;y) performed EC (n = 9) or CC (n = 8) training twice a week for 8&#xa0;weeks. The training progressed from 5 × 2-min intervals with 1-min rest to 7 × 2-min intervals with 30-s rest. EC and CC were matched for perceived effort, and progressed from 30 to 36% of concentric peak power output (PPO<sub>10s</sub>) for CC and from 45 to 70% PPO<sub>10s</sub> for EC. Changes in peak oxygen consumption (VO<sub>2peak</sub>), incremental concentric PPO (PPO<sub>inc</sub>), 6-min walking distance (6&#xa0;MW), 10&#xa0;s concentric PPO (PPO<sub>10s</sub>), maximal voluntary isometric contraction knee extensor strength (MVC), countermovement (CMJ) and squat jump height (SJ), quadriceps cross-sectional area (CSA), and fascicle length (FL) and pennation angle (PA) of vastus lateralis were compared between EC and CC.</p> Results <p>Greater (P &lt; 0.05) changes in PPO<sub>10s</sub> (EC: 26.9 ± 10.5% vs. CC: 8.9 ± 8.0%, Hedges’<i>g</i> = 2.03), CMJ (3.9 ± 1.8 vs. −&#xa0;3.3 ± 7.4%, <i>g</i> = 1.46), SJ (7.4 ± 4.7% vs. −&#xa0;2.3 ± 4.4%, <i>g</i> = 2.26), and CSA (6.1 ± 4.7 vs. 0.1 ± 3.8%, <i>g</i> = 1.48) were observed after EC than CC. No significant differences between EC and CC were found for changes in VO<sub>2peak</sub> (3.7 ± 3.9 vs. 6.6 ± 6.9%, g = -0.55), PPO<sub>inc</sub> (6.0 ± 4.2 vs. 6.4 ± 4.6%, g = −&#xa0;0.11), 6&#xa0;MW (6.0 ± 4.2 vs. 6.4 ± 4.6%, g = -1.03) and MVC (12.5 ± 13.3 vs. 6.2 ± 8.3%, g = 0.59). FL and PA did not show significant changes after EC and CC.</p> Conclusion <p>EC was more effective than CC for improving several markers of muscle function. High-intensity interval eccentric cycling appears to be suitable for simultaneously improving strength and endurance.</p> Graphical abstract <p></p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Superior effects of high-intensity interval eccentric cycling training on neuromuscular adaptations with similar aerobic adaptations to concentric cycling

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月8日

查看全文
  • Marcin Lipski,
  • Joanne Trezise,
  • Chris R. Abbiss,
  • Kazunori Nosaka

摘要

Purpose

We compared the effects of high-intensity interval eccentric (EC) versus concentric cycling (CC) training on aerobic capacity, muscle function and morphology.

Methods

Healthy men (19–56 y) performed EC (n = 9) or CC (n = 8) training twice a week for 8 weeks. The training progressed from 5 × 2-min intervals with 1-min rest to 7 × 2-min intervals with 30-s rest. EC and CC were matched for perceived effort, and progressed from 30 to 36% of concentric peak power output (PPO10s) for CC and from 45 to 70% PPO10s for EC. Changes in peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak), incremental concentric PPO (PPOinc), 6-min walking distance (6 MW), 10 s concentric PPO (PPO10s), maximal voluntary isometric contraction knee extensor strength (MVC), countermovement (CMJ) and squat jump height (SJ), quadriceps cross-sectional area (CSA), and fascicle length (FL) and pennation angle (PA) of vastus lateralis were compared between EC and CC.

Results

Greater (P < 0.05) changes in PPO10s (EC: 26.9 ± 10.5% vs. CC: 8.9 ± 8.0%, Hedges’g = 2.03), CMJ (3.9 ± 1.8 vs. − 3.3 ± 7.4%, g = 1.46), SJ (7.4 ± 4.7% vs. − 2.3 ± 4.4%, g = 2.26), and CSA (6.1 ± 4.7 vs. 0.1 ± 3.8%, g = 1.48) were observed after EC than CC. No significant differences between EC and CC were found for changes in VO2peak (3.7 ± 3.9 vs. 6.6 ± 6.9%, g = -0.55), PPOinc (6.0 ± 4.2 vs. 6.4 ± 4.6%, g = − 0.11), 6 MW (6.0 ± 4.2 vs. 6.4 ± 4.6%, g = -1.03) and MVC (12.5 ± 13.3 vs. 6.2 ± 8.3%, g = 0.59). FL and PA did not show significant changes after EC and CC.

Conclusion

EC was more effective than CC for improving several markers of muscle function. High-intensity interval eccentric cycling appears to be suitable for simultaneously improving strength and endurance.

Graphical abstract