Cross-Education of Muscle Strength Is Greater with Stimulated than Voluntary Contractions

Motor Control ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tibor Hortobágyi ◽  
Kevin Scott ◽  
Jean Lambert ◽  
George Hamilton ◽  
James Tracy
2018 ◽  
Vol 118 (9) ◽  
pp. 1751-1772 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashlyn K. Frazer ◽  
Alan J. Pearce ◽  
Glyn Howatson ◽  
Kevin Thomas ◽  
Stuart Goodall ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
Madelaine Haggert ◽  
Alan Pearce ◽  
Ashlyn Frazer ◽  
Simin Rahman ◽  
Dawson Kidgell ◽  
...  

Purpose: Cross-education (CE) increases strength of both the trained and untrained limb, with emerging evidence, suggesting CE could be used to attenuate muscle strength and thickness following periods of limb immobilization. This study examined the available evidence for the clinical efficacy of CE to attenuate muscle strength, thickness and neural activation during limb immobilization. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of CE on muscle strength, thickness and activation of an immobilized limb.  The evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were pooled to assess effect estimates for changes in strength, muscle thickness and neural activation of the untrained immobilized limb. Results: CE attenuated muscle strength in 5 RCTs (n= 78) which reported a SMD of 1.60 (95% CI 0.62, 2.59; P = 0.001) and muscle thickness, with an SMD of 1.52 (95% CI 0.22, 2.81; P = 0.02) compared to control. There was no difference in muscle activation (SMD of 0.08; 95% CI -0.34, 0.50; P = 0.72), regions of cortical activation (MD 31.8; 95% CI -22.71, 86.31; P = 0.25) or corticospinal excitability (MD 5.2; 95% CI -2.38, 12.78; P = 0.18) compared to control.    Conclusions: These results show that strength training the free limb via cross-education maintains muscle strength and muscle thickness of the immobilized limb compared to control (immobilization only). Because there was no effect on muscle activation, but a large mean difference in cortical activation, it is likely that the attenuation of muscle strength is due to neural adaptations at a cortical level.


Neuroscience ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 300 ◽  
pp. 566-575 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.J. Kidgell ◽  
A.K. Frazer ◽  
T. Rantalainen ◽  
I. Ruotsalainen ◽  
J. Ahtiainen ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Danyelle Cristina Silva Pelet ◽  
Fábio Lera Orsatti

The objectives of this study were 1) to compare the extent of cross-transfer of high- versus low-load unilateral resistance training performed with external pacing of the movement (URTEP) and 2) to compare the time course of the two approaches. Fifty subjects were randomized to one of the following three groups: G80 [two sets at 80% and two sets at 40% of one maximum repetition (1RM), 1 concentric second and 3 eccentric seconds controlled by a metronome]; G40 (four sets at 40% of 1 RM, 1s and 3s controlled by a metronome); or CG (control group). At week 1, the G80 increased the elbow flexion 1RM (P<0.05) in contralateral arm. At week 4, both G80 and G40 increased the elbow flexion 1RM (P<0.05) in contralateral arm. However, a greater 1RM gain was observed in the G80 than in the G40 (P< .05). Thus, although higher-load URTEP seems to enhance the cross-education effect when compared to lower-load URTEP, the cross-education of dynamic strength can be achieved in the two approaches after four weeks. Many patients would benefit from cross-education of muscle strength through URPEP, even who are unable to exercise with high loads and in short periods of immobilization. Novelty bullets: (1) Unilateral resistance training promotes cross-education of dynamic muscle strength. (2) However, higher-load resistance training enhances the effects of cross-education of muscle strength.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document