The aim of this investigation was to study the relationships among movement velocity, torque output and electromyographic (EMG) activity of the knee extensor muscles under eccentric and concentric loading. Fourteen male subjects performed maximal voluntary eccentric and concentric constant-velocity knee extensions at 45, 90, 180 and 360 degrees.s-1. Myoelectric signals were recorded, using surface electrodes, from the vastus medialis, vastus lateralis and rectus femoris muscles. For comparison, torque and full-wave rectified EMG signals were amplitude-averaged through the central half (30 degrees-70 degrees) of the range of motion. For each test velocity, eccentric torque was greater than concentric torque (range of mean differences: 20%-146%, P less than 0.05). In contrast, EMG activity for all muscles was lower under eccentric loading than velocity-matched concentric loading (7%-31%, P less than 0.05). Neither torque output nor EMG activity for the three muscles changed across eccentric test velocities (P greater than 0.05). While concentric torque increased with decreasing velocity, EMG activity for all muscles decreased with decreasing velocity (P less than 0.05). These data suggest that under certain high-tension loading conditions (especially during eccentric muscle actions), the neural drive to the agonist muscles was reduced, despite maximal voluntary effort. This may protect the musculoskeletal system from an injury that could result if the muscle was to become fully activated under these conditions.

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of electrical stimulation on torque output during knee extension. Nine well-trained males (19-43 years) performed maximal voluntary, electrically evoked and superimposed eccentric and concentric knee extensions at velocities of 60, 180 and 360 degrees s-1, plus an isometric test (torque was always recorded at a 60 degree knee angle). Fifty-hertz stimulation was applied percutaneously at the maximum tolerated voltage (140-200 V). By superimposing electrical stimulation, eccentric torque could be increased by an average of 21-24% above the voluntary level (P less than 0.05). No corresponding differences were observed between superimposed and voluntary torques under isometric or concentric conditions. Electrically evoked torque also exceeded voluntary torque under eccentric conditions (11-12%, P less than 0.05), but was less under isometric and concentric conditions (-10 to -52%, P less than 0.05). Within the limitations of the study, it was concluded that eccentric knee extension torque under maximal voluntary conditions does not represent the maximal torque-producing capacity. The action of a neural inhibitory mechanism was proposed as an explanation for this finding. If active, this mechanism may protect against the extreme muscle tension that could otherwise develop under truly maximal eccentric conditions.

The primary purpose of this investigation was to study the eccentric and concentric torque-velocity characteristics of the quadriceps femoris in man using a recently developed combined isometric, concentric and eccentric controlled velocity dynamometer (the SPARK System). A secondary purpose was to compare the method error associated with maximal voluntary concentric and eccentric torque output over a range of testing velocities. 21 males (21-32 years) performed on two separate days maximal voluntary isometric, concentric and eccentric contractions of the quadriceps femoris at 4 isokinetic lever arm velocities of 0 degree.s-1 (isometric), 30 degrees.s-1, 120 degrees.s-1 and 270 degrees.s-1. Eccentric peak torque and angle-specific torques (measured every 10 degrees from 30 degrees to 70 degrees) did not significantly change from 0 degrees.s-1 to 270 degrees.s-1 (p greater than 0.005) with the exception of angle-specific 40 degrees torque, which significantly increased; p less than 0.05). The mean method error was significantly higher for the eccentric tests (10.6% +/- 1.6%) than for the concentric tests (8.1% +/- 1.7%) (p less than 0.05). The mean method error decreased slightly with increasing concentric velocity (p greater than 0.05), and increased slightly with increasing eccentric velocity (p greater than 0.05). A tension restricting neural mechanism, if active during maximal eccentric contractions, could possibly account for the large difference seen between the present eccentric torque-velocity results and the classic results obtained from isolated animal muscle.

The purpose of this study was to assess and compare eccentric (ECC) and concentric (CONC) torque output of the quadriceps and hamstring muscles and to analyze the effect of gravity effect torque (GET) correction on the calculation of the hamstring/quadriceps peak torque quotient (H/Q quotient). Twenty female subjects performed maximal voluntary CONC and ECC contractions of the quadriceps and hamstring muscles at five isokinetic lever arm velocities from 60 degrees/s to 360 degrees/s. Peak torque was measured and corrected for GET. Mean ECC torque did not significantly change with increasing ECC velocity for either the quadriceps or hamstring muscles (P greater than 0.05). Mean CONC torques were significantly lower than the corresponding ECC torques (P less than 0.05) and decreased with increasing CONC velocity. At each test velocity, the CONC H/Q quotient was significantly lower than the corresponding ECC H/Q quotient (P less than 0.05). Mean H/Q quotients did not significantly change with increasing velocity for either the CONC or ECC tests (means: 0.46 and 0.57; P greater than 0.05). Mean H/Q quotients not corrected for GET significantly increased with increasing velocity for the CONC (0.61 to 0.78; P less than 0.05), but not ECC tests (0.66 to 0.71; P greater than 0.05). The results indicate that the ECC torque-velocity curve is essentially level for both quadriceps and hamstring muscles. The present findings point strongly toward the necessity of correcting for GET when calculating both CONC and ECC H/Q quotients.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

A new computerized dynamometer (the SPARK System) is described. The system can measure concentric and eccentric muscle strength (torque) during linear or nonlinear acceleration or deceleration, isokinetic movements up to 400 degrees.s-1, and isometric torque. Studies were performed to assess: I. validity and reproducibility of torque measurements; II. control of lever arm position; III. control of different velocity patterns; IV. control of velocity during subject testing; and, V. intra-individual reproducibility. No significant difference was found between torque values computed by the system and known torque values (p greater than 0.05). No difference was present between programmed and external measurement of the lever arm position. Accelerating, decelerating and isokinetic velocity patterns were highly reproducible, with differences in elapsed time among 10 trials being never greater than 0.001 s. Velocity during concentric and eccentric isokinetic quadriceps contractions at 30 degrees.s-1, 120 degrees.s-1 and 270 degrees.s-1 never varied by more than 3 degrees.s-1 among subjects (N = 21). Over three days of testing, the overall error for concentric and eccentric quadriceps contraction peak torque values for 5 angular velocities between 30 degrees.s-1 and 270 degrees.s-1 ranged from 5.8% to 9.0% and 5.8% to 9.6% respectively (N = 25). The results indicate that the SPARK System provides valid and reproducible torque measurements and strict control of velocity. In addition, the intra-individual error is in accordance with those reported for other similar devices.