Comparison in repetitions to failure between concentric-only and eccentric-only dumbbell arm curl exercise at four different relative intensities

Document Type

Journal Article

Publication Title

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Publisher

National Strength and Conditioning Association / Wolters Kluwer

School

Centre for Human Performance / School of Medical and Health Sciences

RAS ID

61878

Funders

Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, KAKENHI

Comments

Shibata, K., Yamaguchi, T., Takizawa, K., & Nosaka, K. (2023). Comparison in repetitions to failure between concentric-only and eccentric-only dumbbell arm curl exercise at four different relative intensities. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 37(9), 1754-1760. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000004470

Abstract

Shibata, K, Yamaguchi, T, Takizawa, K, and Nosaka, K. Comparison in repetitions to failure between concentric-only and eccentric-only dumbbell arm curl exercise at four different relative intensities. J Strength Cond Res 37(9): 1754-1760, 2023-The repetitions to failure (RF) were compared between concentric-only (CON) and eccentric-only (ECC) arm curl exercise for different intensities based on CON and ECC 1 repetition maximum (1RM), respectively, with 2 different inter-repetition rests. Sixteen healthy male, university students (19-22 years) participated in 6 sessions. In sessions 1 and 2, CON and ECC 1RM strength were determined. In sessions 3 to 6, CON and ECC dumbbell arm curl exercises were performed until momentary failure at the intensity of either 70, 80, 90 or 95% of CON and ECC 1RM, respectively, with the inter-repetition rest of 3 seconds (R3) for one arm and 6 seconds (R6) for the other arm in a pseudo-randomized order. A significant (p < 0.01) muscle contraction type × intensity interaction effect was evident for both R3 and R6 conditions. RF was greater (p < 0.01) in ECC than in CON at 70% (34.2 ± 13.3 vs 20.9 ± 5.4), 80% (22.0 ± 6.7 vs 11.6 ± 2.7), 90% (10.1 ± 3.1 vs 5.2 ± 1.3), and 95% (6.8 ± 2.1 vs 2.7 ± 0.8) for R3. RF was also greater (p < 0.01) for ECC than for CON at 80% (24.5 ± 8.1 vs 15.6 ± 3.6), 90% (10.8 ± 2.8 vs 7.2 ± 1.8) and 95% (6.7 ± 2.4 vs 3.9 ± 1.5) for R6, with greater (p < 0.05) RF for R6 than R3. Significant (p < 0.01) correlations in RF were evident between CON and ECC for R3 (r = 0.86) and R6 (r = 0.76). Equations to estimate 1RM were derived for CON and ECC at R3 and R6 (e.g., ECC 1RM = Load × 110.0/[110.5-RF] for R3). These results suggest that fatigue is less in ECC than in CON performed at the same relative intensity. © 2023 NSCA National Strength and Conditioning Association. All rights reserved.

DOI

10.1519/JSC.0000000000004470

Access Rights

subscription content

Link to Full Text

Share

 
COinS