Skip Navigation LinksHome > September 1996 - Volume 28 - Issue 9 > Cross-sectional and longitudinal uses of isoinertial, isomet...
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise:
Applied Sciences: Biodynamics

Cross-sectional and longitudinal uses of isoinertial, isometric, and isokinetic dynamomety

ABERNETHY, PETER J.; JÜRIMÄE, JAAK

Collapse Box

Abstract

The purposes of this investigation were to assess whether maximal isoinertial (triceps pushdown [TP] and triceps extension [TE]), isometric and isokinetic (1.04, 2.08, 3.14, 4.16, and 5.20 rad·s-1) forearm extension strength measures: 1) presented statistical generality when they were correlated prior to and following 4, 8, and 12 wk of resistance training; 2) were similarly affected by training; and 3) presented statistical generality when their changes as a consequence of training were intercorrelated. Fifteen men (11 experimental and 4 controls) without a history of resistance training participated in the study. Training involved four sets of 8-12 repetitions, each followed by 90-s recovery, at 70-75% one repetition maximum (1RM), three times a week, for 12 wk. Training incorporated the TP, close-grip bench press, and triceps kickback exercises. Prior to and after 4, 8, and 12 wk of training, the intercorrelations among the TP, isometric, and isokinetic indices almost always achieved statistical generality (i.e., r2 > 0.5). It was concluded that the strength measures generally discriminated similarly between subjects. However, the sensitivity of the strength measures to the effects of training were dissimilar. While all strength indices increased with the training, the timing(isoinertial prior to isometric and isokinetic adaptations) and magnitude(TP>TE> isometric>isokinetic) of these adaptations varied greatly. None of the intercorrelations between changes in the strength indices achieved statistical generality. Furthermore, factor (F)-analyses on these changes indicated that in the initial and later stages of training, there were three and four discrete factors, respectively, accounting for strength development. These factors were thought to reflect differential effects of training on the structural, neural (including learning), and mechanical mechanisms underpinning each strength index. Possible applications of this research design in better understanding strength development were also canvassed.

©1996The American College of Sports Medicine

Login

Article Tools

Share

Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may modify the keyword list to augment your search.

Connect With Us