Variation in Maximal Voluntary Contraction During the Menstrual Cycle

Iwamoto, Y; Kubo, Junjiro; Ito, Masamitsu; Takemiya, Takashi; Asami, Taichi

doi:10.7600/jspfsm1949.51.193

Cited by 3 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Results showed nonsignificant and trivial differences (p≥0.93, ES≤0.01) in each of the three comparisons, with the uncertainty around effect size estimates extending to a small effect without clear direction (supplementary table). Three investigations observed significantly higher (p<0.05) MVC measures around ovulation compared to other menstrual cycle phases 30,37,39 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…A total of 232 participants were included (mean age range: 19-30 years). Four studies used sedentary participants [30][31][32][33] , six studies used recreational or active participants [34][35][36][37][38][39] , five studies used moderatelytrained participants [40][41][42][43][44] , three investigations used well-trained or Collegiate athletes [45][46][47] , and two studies used highly-trained or elite performers 41,48 . Two studies did not mention the training status of their participants 49,50 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fifteen studies attempted to identify menstrual cycle phases/events prior to data collection using an estimate of basal body temperature 30,32,36,38,39,43,49,50 and/or LH concentration in the urine [30][31][32]34,35,37,42,46 , with the other six studies using only self-report strategies 33,41,44,45,47,48 . Twelve investigations measured oestrogen and progesterone concentrations prior to each trial in the blood [32][33][34][35]37,38,42,43,47,50 , saliva 45 or urine 46 , and a further three studies measured only progesterone in the blood 36,44,48 . One study assessed only salivary testosterone concentrations 41 , and five investigations did not verify differences between measurement time points with hormone measurements 30,31,39,40,49 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Heterogeneity for each variable and sub-group was very small (p≥0.83, I 2 =0%). A MVC task was used in eleven studies 30,31,50,32,35,[37][38][39][40]42,49 and all were entered in the meta-analysis (n=98). Results showed nonsignificant and trivial differences (p≥0.93, ES≤0.01) in each of the three comparisons, with the uncertainty around effect size estimates extending to a small effect without clear direction (supplementary table).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Variations in strength-related measures during the menstrual cycle in eumenorrheic women: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Blagrove

Bruinvels

Pedlar

2020

Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To systematically review the current body of research that has investigated changes in strength-related variables during different phases of the menstrual cycle in eumenorrheic women. Design: Systematic review and metaanalysis. Method: A literature search was conducted in Pubmed, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science using search terms related to the menstrual cycle and strength-related measures. Two reviewers reached consensus that 21 studies met the criteria for inclusion. Methodological rigor was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Random effects meta-analyses were used to compare the early-follicular, ovulatory and mid-luteal phases for maximal voluntary contraction, isokinetic peak torque, and explosive strength. Results: The assessment of study quality showed that a high level of bias exists in specific areas of study design. Non-significant and small or trivial effect sizes (p≥0.26, Hedges g ≤0.35) were identified for all strengthrelated variables in each comparison between phases. 95% confidence intervals for each comparison suggested the uncertainty associated with each estimate extends to a small effect on strength performance with unclear direction (-0.42≤ g ≤0.48). The heterogeneity for each comparison was also small (p≥0.83, I 2 =0%).Conclusions: Strength status appears to be minimally altered (g ≤0.35) by the fluctuations in ovarian sex hormones that occur during the menstrual cycle. This finding should be interpreted with caution due to the methodological shortcomings identified by the quality assessment.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Variations in strength-related measures during the menstrual cycle in eumenorrheic women: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Blagrove

Bruinvels

Pedlar

2020

Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The literature within this area report conflicting data. Some studies have found a greater maximum voluntary force production around the time of ovulation (Phillips et al, 1996; Sarwar et al, 1996; Iwamoto et al, 2002), while others report no variation in strength parameters between menstrual phases (Constantini et al, 2005; Lebrun et al, 2013). Yet, such variations in performance may have weakened our possibility for detecting a difference in strength gain between the study groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Oral Contraceptive Use on Adaptations to Resistance Training

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The majority of young women use oral contraceptives (OCs). Use of OCs has been associated with lower myofibrillar protein and tendon collagen synthesis rates, but it is unknown whether OCs will limit the adaptive response of myotendinous tissue to resistance training. Design and Methods: Fourteen healthy untrained young regular OC users (24 ± 1 years, fat% 32 ± 1, 35 ± 2 ml⋅min -1 ⋅kg -1 ) and 14 NOC users (non-OC, controls) (24 ± 1 years, fat% 32 ± 2, 34 ± 2 ml⋅min -1 ⋅kg -1 ) performed a 10-week supervised lower extremity progressive resistance training program. Before and after the intervention biopsies from the vastus lateralis muscle and the patellar tendon were obtained. Muscle (quadriceps) and tendon cross-sectional area (CSA) was determined by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans, and muscle fiber CSA was determined by histochemistry. Maximal isometric knee extension strength was assessed by dynamometry while 1 repetition maximum (RM) was determined during knee extension. Results: Training enhanced CSA in both muscle ( p < 0.001) and tendon ( p < 0.01). A trend toward a greater increase in muscle CSA was observed for OC (11%) compared to NOC (8%) (interaction p = 0.06). Analysis of mean muscle fiber type CSA showed a trend toward an increase in type II muscle fiber area in both groups ( p = 0.11, interaction p = 0.98), whereas type I muscle fiber CSA increased in the OC group ( n = 9, 3821 ± 197 to 4490 ± 313 mm 2 , p < 0.05), but not in NOC ( n = 7, 4020 ± 348 to 3777 ± 354 mm 2 , p = 0.40) (interaction p < 0.05). Post hoc analyses indicated that the effect of OCs on muscle mass increase was induced by the OC-users ( n = 7), who used OCs containing 30 μg ethinyl estradiol (EE), whereas the response in users taking OCs with 20 μg EE ( n = 7) did not differ from NOC. Both the OC and NOC group experienced an increase in maximal knee strength ( p < 0.001) and 1RM leg extension ( p < 0.001) after the training period with no difference between groups. Conclusion: Use of OCs during a 10-week supervised progressive resistance training program was associated with a trend toward a greater increase in muscle mass and a significantly greater increase in type I muscle fiber area compared to controls. Yet, use of OCs did not influence the overall increase in muscle strength related to training.

show abstract