Repeated measurements of Adaptive Force: Maximal holding capacity differs from other maximal strength parameters and preliminary characteristics for non-professional strength vs. endurance athletes

• Published in: Frontiers in physiology 2023-02, Vol.14, p.1020954
• Main Authors: Schaefer, Laura V, Carnarius, Friederike, Dech, Silas, Bittmann, Frank N
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adaptive Force; holding capacity; injury mechanisms; maximal isometric Adaptive Force; neuromuscular control; Physiology; strength vs. endurance athletes
• ISSN: 1664-042X; 1664-042X
• DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2023.1020954

The Adaptive Force (AF) reflects the neuromuscular capacity to adapt to external loads during holding muscle actions and is similar to motions in real life and sports. The maximal isometric AF (AFiso ) was considered to be the most relevant parameter and was assumed to have major importance regarding injury mechanisms and the development of musculoskeletal pain. The aim of this study was to investigate the behavior of different torque parameters over the course of 30 repeated maximal AF trials. In addition, maximal holding vs. maximal pushing isometric muscle actions were compared. A side consideration was the behavior of torques in the course of repeated AF actions when comparing strength and endurance athletes. The elbow flexors of = 12 males (six strength/six endurance athletes, non-professionals) were measured 30 times (120 s rest) using a pneumatic device. Maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) was measured pre and post. MVIC, AFiso , and AF (maximal torque of one AF measurement) were evaluated regarding different considerations and statistical tests. AF and AFiso declined in the course of 30 trials [slope regression (mean ± standard deviation): AF = -0.323 ± 0.263; AFiso = -0.45 ± 0.45]. The decline from start to end amounted to -12.8% ± 8.3% ( < 0.001) for AF and -25.41% ± 26.40% ( < 0.001) for AFiso . AF parameters declined more in strength vs. endurance athletes. Thereby, strength athletes showed a rather stable decline for AF and a plateau formation for AFiso after 15 trials. In contrast, endurance athletes reduced their AF , especially after the first five trials, and remained on a rather similar level for AFiso . The maximum of AFiso of all 30 trials amounted 67.67% ± 13.60% of MVIC ( < 0.001, = 12), supporting the hypothesis of two types of isometric muscle action (holding vs. pushing). The findings provided the first data on the behavior of torque parameters after repeated isometric-eccentric actions and revealed further insights into neuromuscular control strategies. Additionally, they highlight the importance of investigating AF parameters in athletes based on the different behaviors compared to MVIC. This is assumed to be especially relevant regarding injury mechanisms.