
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/">
  <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
  <dc:creator id="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6740-3347">Којић, Филип</dc:creator>
  <dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type>
  <dc:identifier>https://phaidrabg.bg.ac.rs/o:26059</dc:identifier>
  <dc:identifier>doi:10.5114/biolsport.2021.99323</dc:identifier>
  <dc:identifier>ISSN: 0860-021X</dc:identifier>
  <dc:description xml:lang="srp">ABSTRACT: The aim of the study was to compare the effects of two different training protocols, which differ in the duration of the eccentric phase, on the one-repetition maximum (1RM), thickness and contractile properties of elbow flexors. Twenty untrained college students were randomly divided into two experimental groups, based on the training tempo: FEG (Faster Eccentric Group: 1/0/1/0) and SEG (Slower Eccentric Group: 4/0/1/0). Training intervention was a biceps bending exercise, conducted twice a week for 7 weeks. The intensity (60–70% RM), sets (3–4) and rest intervals (120 s) were held constant, while repetitions were performed until it was not possible to maintain a set duration. In the initial and final measurements, 1RM, muscle thickness and tensiomyography parameters – contraction time (Tc) and radial deformation (Dm) – were evaluated. An ANCOVA model (using baseline outcomes as covariates) was applied to determine between-group differences at post-test, while Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient was used to investigate the relationship between absolute changes in muscle thickness and Dm. Muscle strength increase was greater for SEG than for FEG (6.0 ± 1.76 vs. 3.30 ± 2.26 kg, p &lt; 0.01). In both groups muscle thickness increased equally (FEG: 3.24 ± 2.01 vs. SEG: 3.57 ± 1.17 mm, p &lt; 0.01), while an overall reduction in Dm was observed (FEG: 1.99 ± 1.20 vs. SEG: 2.26 ± 1.03 mm, p &lt; 0.01). Values of Tc remained unchanged. A significant negative relationship was observed between changes in muscle thickness and Dm (r = -0.763, Adj.R² = 0.560, p &lt; 0.01). These results indicate that the duration of the eccentric phase has no effect on muscle hypertrophy in untrained subjects, but that slower eccentric movement significantly increases 1RM.</dc:description>
  <dc:description xml:lang="srp">https://www.termedia.pl/Effects-of-resistance-training-on-hypertrophy-strength-and-tensiomyography-parameters-of-elbow-flexors-role-of-eccentric-phase-duration,78,41875,0,1.html</dc:description>
  <dc:rights>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode</dc:rights>
  <dc:title xml:lang="eng">Effects of resistance training on hypertrophy, strength and tensiomyography parameters of elbow flexors: role of eccentric phase duration </dc:title>
  <dc:publisher>Institute of Sport – National Research Instutite</dc:publisher>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:format>486442 bytes</dc:format>
  <dc:source>Biology of Sport 38(4)</dc:source>
  <dc:date>2021</dc:date>
  <dc:subject xml:lang="eng">Key words: Training tempo Muscle thickness Muscle stiffness 1RM Tensiomyography</dc:subject>
</oai_dc:dc>
