Age, Sex, and Training Specific Effects on Cross-Education Training

Résumé fourni par la source

An extensive number of publications have examined cross-education effects with adults, primarily investigating contralateral homologous (same) muscles. There are far fewer investigations on cross-education effects on contralateral heterologous (different) muscles and age (youth vs adult) and no studies investigating sex differences. Hence, the objective was to compare cross-education in female and male youth and young adults to contralateral homologous (chest press [CP], elbow flexors and extensors, handgrip isometric strength, and shot put) and heterologous (leg press, knee extension isometric strength, and countermovement jump) muscles. Twenty-eight female adults, 28 female youth, 28 male adults, and 28 male youth (total: 112) were examined before and after an 8-week (3 sessions/wk) unilateral, dominant arm, CP training program. Unilateral testing assessed dominant and nondominant leg press and CP 1-repetition maximum, knee extensors, elbow extensors, elbow flexors, and handgrip maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) strength, as well as shot put distance and countermovement jump height. Unilateral CP training induced training specific (CP 1-repetition maximum) and nonspecific (elbow extensors, elbow flexors, handgrip MVIC force, and shot put distance) improvements (P < .04, η2: .45-.85) but no significant lower body improvements. There was evidence for testing limb specificity as the dominant arm provided significantly (P < .021, η2: .17-.75) greater training gains than the nondominant arm. Youth's training adaptations exceeded with unilateral CP 1-repetition maximum, elbow extensors MVIC force, and shot put distance (P < .049, η2: .14-.49). No sex main effect differences were apparent. In conclusion, cross-education was training specific (greatest gains with upper body and dominant limbs) with greater benefits for youth and generally no sex differences with the exception of elbow extensors MVIC.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.