Table 3.
Summarized study characteristics comparing changes in maximal voluntary concentric (MVCCON), eccentric (MVCECC) and isometric (MVCECC) strength between eccentric and concentric training protocols
| Subgroup variable | Category | n Studies (outcomesa) | Outcomesa (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | Only men | 5 (9) | 45 |
| Only women | 2 (5) | 25 | |
| Mixed sample | 4 (6) | 30 | |
| Status | Untrained | 2 (5) | 25 |
| Moderately | 8 (14) | 70 | |
| Not reported | 1 (1) | 5 | |
| Muscle | All lower body | 8 (15) | 75 |
| lower body | Knee extensors | 8 (13) | 87 |
| Knee flexors | 1 (2) | 13 | |
| Muscle | All upper body | 3 (5) | 25 |
| upper body | Elbow flexors | 2 (4) | 80 |
| Shoulder abductors | 1 (1) | 20 | |
| Isokinetic training | 30 | 3 (7) | 35 |
| velocity (°/s) | 45 | 1 (1) | 5 |
| 60 | 5 (5) | 25 | |
| 90 | 2 (3) | 15 | |
| Velocity spectrumb | 1 (4) | 20 |
aNumber of comparisons between eccentric-only and concentric-only training results
bVelocity spectrum pyramidal ordering concept training