Contralateral effects of eccentric resistance training on immobilized arm

This study compared the effects of contralateral eccentric-only (ECC) and concentric-/eccentric-coupled resistance training (CON-ECC) of the elbow flexors on immobilized arm. Thirty healthy participants (18-34 y) were randomly allocated to immobilization only (CTRL; n = 10), immobilization and ECC (n = 10), or immobilization and CON-ECC group (n = 10). The non-dominant arms of all participants were immobilized (8 h·day^-1 ) for 4 weeks, during which ECC and CON-ECC were performed by the dominant (non-immobilized) arm 3 times a week (3-6 sets of 10 repetitions per session) with an 80%-120% and 60%-90% of one concentric repetition maximum (1-RM) load, respectively, matching the total training volume. Arm circumference, 1-RM and maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) strength, biceps brachii surface electromyogram amplitude (sEMG_RMS ), rate of force development (RFD), and joint position sense (JPS) were measured for both arms before and after immobilization. CTRL showed decreases (P < .05) in MVIC (-21.7%), sEMG_RMS (-35.2%), RFD (-26.0%), 1-RM (-14.4%), JPS (-87.4%), and arm circumference (-5.1%) of the immobilized arm. These deficits were attenuated or eliminated by ECC and CON-ECC, with greater effect sizes for ECC than CON-ECC in MVIC (0.29: +12.1%, vs -0.18: -0.1%) and sEMG_RMS (0.31:17.5% vs -0.15: -5.9%). For the trained arm, ECC showed greater effect size for MVIC than CON-ECC (0.47 vs 0.29), and increased arm circumference (+2.9%), sEMG_RMS (+77.9%), and RDF (+31.8%) greater (P < .05) than CON-ECC (+0.6%, +15.1%, and + 15.8%, respectively). The eccentric-only resistance training of the contralateral arm was more effective to counteract the negative immobilization effects than the concentric-eccentric training.