Affiliations: [a] Human Performance Laboratory, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA | [b] Applied Physiology and Sports Medicine Laboratory, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA | [c] Applied Neuromuscular Physiology Laboratory, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA
Correspondence:
[*]
Corresponding author: Cameron S. Mackey, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL 60666, USA. Tel.: +1 405 7141137; E-mail: [email protected].
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: Having participants perform 50 maximal isokinetic contractions, as introduced by Thorstensson and Karlsson (1976), is to this day one of the most commonly used fatigue protocols. Purpose: To determine to what extent a Thorstensson fatiguing protocol affects isokinetic and isometric performance characteristics. METHODS: Twenty-five college-aged men performed an isokinetic fatigue protocol consisting of 50 maximal elbow flexions at a moderate speed (180∘⋅s-1). Pre- and post-tests were used to calculate fatigue indices (FI%) for the following variables: isometric and isokinetic peak torque (PT), isometric rate of torque development (RTD), and maximum acceleration (ACCmax). RESULTS: Each of the four dependent variables significantly decreased with fatigue (each demonstrated p< 0.001), but not of the same magnitude. Isometric PT FI (-18.7%) was significantly less than isokinetic PT FI (-45.1%, p⩽ 0.001) and ACCmax FI (-26.3%) was significantly less than isometric RTD FI (-54.9%, p⩽ 0.001). There was a significant positive relationship between isometric and isokinetic PT FI% (r= 0.60, p< 0.002) as well as between isometric PT FI% and RTD FI% (r= 0.40, p< 0.046). There was no significant relationship observed between RTD FI% and ACCmax FI% nor between isokinetic PT FI% and ACCmax FI%. CONCLUSIONS: This investigation observed different patterns of response in maximal strength between isometric and isokinetic assessments following a isokinetic fatigue protocol. Additionally, the ability to rapidly generate strength and velocity had significantly different responses to fatigue between isometric and dynamic assessments. Due to these different responses, we recommend that assessments of fatigue at least include the same testing modality as the modality of the fatigue protocol.
