Home > Journals > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness > Past Issues > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2021 December;61(12) > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2021 December;61(12):1587-95



Publishing options
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian


Publication history
Cite this article as



The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2021 December;61(12):1587-95

DOI: 10.23736/S0022-4707.21.12010-9


language: English

Order of concentric and eccentric muscle actions affects metabolic responses

William A. FOUNTAIN, Zackary J. VALENTI, Colleen E. LYNCH, Samantha R. GUARNERA, Benjamin M. MEISTER, Nicholas A. CARLINI, Kerry E. LYNCH, Dillon J. KUSZMAUL, Alec B. CHAVES, Scott A. MAZZETTI

School of Health Sciences, Laboratory for Human Performance, Salisbury University, Salisbury, MD, USA

BACKGROUND: Resistance exercise provides an effective stimulus for improving the metabolic plasticity of skeletal muscle, and the type of acute muscle contraction plays an important role in determining specific responses and adaptations. The purpose of the current investigation was to examine the effect of contraction order on metabolic responses by comparing monophasic concentric and eccentric squats versus a protocol incorporating alternated concentric and eccentric repetitions.
METHODS: Twelve recreationally active men (21.1±1.1yr) performed three nearly identical squat protocols on separate days. Protocols varied only with contraction-type, including 4 sets × 10 reps concentric-only (CON), eccentric-only (ECC), and BOTH which alternated 5 concentric followed by 5 eccentric reps (CON-ECC; sets 1 and 3) and vice versa (ECC-CON; sets 2 and 4). The experimental trials were performed once weekly in a randomized, counter-balanced order, and expired gases were collected using a two-way non-rebreathing mask and oxygen consumption quantified with indirect calorimetry. Subjects raised (CON) and lowered (ECC) the load in 2s, and all sets (2 min) and repetitions (8 s) were separated by standardized rest intervals.
RESULTS: From the BOTH protocol, the increase in metabolic rate was significantly greater (P≤0.05) during squats performed with CON-ECC order (0.60±0.11 L·min-1) compared to ECC-CON (0.44±0.07 L·min-1), but excess postexercise oxygen consumption (EPOC) was opposite, with significantly greater metabolic rate during the 2-minute rest intervals after ECC-CON squats (0.46±0.09 L·min-1) compared to CON-ECC (0.25±0.05 L·min-1). Metabolic rates during and after squats were significantly greater (P≤0.05) with CON (0.63±0.09; 0.49±0.10 L·min-1) compared to ECC (0.34±0.04; 0.20±0.04 L·min-1), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: These data present an interesting paradigm regarding the contraction-dependent metabolic responses to monophasic resistance exercise and suggest a greater EPOC following concentric versus eccentric muscle actions.

KEY WORDS: Resistance training; Energy metabolism; Metabolic clearance rate

top of page