HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 106/3/830    most recent 91331.2008v1 Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Farthing, J. P. Articles by Magnus, C. R. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Farthing, J. P. Articles by Magnus, C. R. A.

Strength training the free limb attenuates strength loss during unilateral immobilization

College of Kinesiology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

Submitted 6 October 2008 ; accepted in final form 10 January 2009

The objective was to determine if strength training the free limb during a 3-wk period of unilateral immobilization attenuates strength loss in the immobilized limb through cross-education. Thirty right-handed participants were assigned to three groups. One group (n = 10) wore a cast and trained the free arm (Cast-Train). A second group (n = 10) wore a cast and did not train (Cast). A third group (n = 10) received no treatment (control). Casts were applied to the nondominant (left) wrist and hand by a physician. Strength training was maximal isometric ulnar deviation (right hand) 5 days/wk. Peak torque (dynamometer), electromyography (EMG), and muscle thickness (ultrasound) were assessed in both arms before and after the intervention. Cast-Train improved right arm strength [14.3 (SD 5.0) to 17.7 (SD 4.8) N·m; P < 0.05] with no significant muscle hypertrophy [3.73 (SD 0.43) to 3.84 (SD 0.52) cm; P = 0.09]. The immobilized arm of Cast-Train did not change in strength [13.9 (SD 4.3) to 14.2 (SD 4.6) N·m] or muscle thickness [3.61 (SD 0.51) to 3.57 (SD 0.43) cm]. The immobilized arm of Cast decreased in strength [12.2 (SD 3.8) to 10.4 (SD 2.5) N·m; P < 0.05] and muscle thickness [3.47 (SD 0.59) to 3.32 (SD 0.55) cm; P < 0.05]. Control showed no changes in the right arm [strength: 15.3 (SD 6.1) to 14.3 (SD 5.8) N·m; muscle thickness: 3.57 (SD 0.68) to 3.52 (SD 0.75) cm] or left arm [strength: 14.5 (SD 5.3) to 13.7 (SD 6.1) N·m; muscle thickness: 3.55 (SD 0.77) to 3.51 (SD 0.70) cm]. Agonist muscle activation remained unchanged after the intervention for both arms [right: 302 (SD 188) to 314 (SD 176) µV; left: 261 (SD 139) to 288 (SD 151) µV] with no group differences. Strength training of the free limb attenuated strength loss in the immobilized limb during unilateral immobilization. Strength training may have prevented muscle atrophy in the immobilized limb.

limb unloading; disuse; cross-education; muscle atrophy; wrist strength