In the present study, to track EMG parameters obtained day-to-day over seven days after EE, subjects were asked to perform isometric contractions at 50% of their MVT measured on the very first session (e.g. day 1 before-EE). That is, subjects were required to apply the same absolute amount of force to perform IC50 on every day of the 7-day trial. However, to elicit a higher level of muscle fibre recruitment, subjects also performed isometric contractions at 80% of their MVT obtained on each particular day. Therefore, the amounts of force to perform IC80 were different between sessions depending on subjects’ MVT during that session. We selected this approach to document possible changes of RMS and MDF at a constant level of force, as well as at a consistent level of effort. In this study, we did not normalize our EMG data based on daily EMG measures, because to do so would eliminate any changes that occurred between days. It is interesting to note that the 50% and 80% of MVT on days 2 and 3 often evoked similar isometric forces, because the subjects’ maximum force declined significantly on those days. With the above approach in mind, when we aimed to compare the day-to-day changes in EMG, IC50 might be relevant to describing muscle physiological responses at the same absolute levels of torque production. But, when wishing to study responses of a constant level of effort, IC80 might provide the best way to document muscle physiological adaptations during post-EE recovery. Although our findings showed significant arm-by-day interaction in RMS regression intercepts during IC80 (Figure 5), the overall changes did not follow a consistent trend or pattern. Similarly, we did not observe a consistent pattern of changes in RMS intercept and slope at IC50 or in RMS slope at IC80 (Table 1). Therefore, it seemed that RMS did not provide reliable information about muscle recovery after damage. RMS is more susceptible to the day-to-day changes compared to MDF (Felici et al., 1997; Merletti et al., 1995). These results supported the findings of other authors who either did not find any significant changes in RMS after EE (Sayers et al., 2001), or their RMS data was not statistically linear, and they did not perform further statistical analyses on RMS (Felici et al., 1997). MDF linear regression intercept decreased significantly after acute EE during both IC50 and IC80 within the Exercised arm and was also less than pre-EE on day 3 during IC50 (Figure 4). Although MDF had recovered by day 2 during IC80, there was a general trend of decrements over the next 5 days for this variable. This was also the case for MDF intercept at IC50 (Figure 4). These findings were in accord with the findings of some studies (Day et al., 1998; Felici et al., 1997), but not in line with the results of others (Berry et al., 1990; Komi and Viitasalo, 1977; McHugh et al., 2000). McHugh and co-workers (2000) reported that median frequency did not change after EE. Berry et al., 1990 did not observe any significant change in mean frequency after EE. The possible reason for a decline in MDF after EE might be explained on a physiological basis. MDF represents information about conduction velocity of muscle fibres, the shape of motor unit action potentials, the mean firing rate of the individual motor units, the recruitment of motor units and the extent of superposition of action potentials from concurrently active motor units (Felici et al., 1997). Muscle fibre conduction velocity is higher for fast-twitch fibres (Andearssen and Arendt-Nielsen, 1987), which means that when fast twitch fibres are more active the MDF value will be higher. Friden et al., 1983 found that fast twitch fibres showed significant disruption at the myofibrillar Z-band after EE compared to the other types of muscle fibres (Friden et al., 1983). Therefore, fast twitch fibres are more susceptible to damage and fatigue (Berry et al., 1990), and consequently a shift towards greater recruitment of slow twitch motor units might be anticipated in order to decrease the stress on the susceptible fast-twitch fibres (McHugh et al., 2001). Therefore, a decrease in MDF could be the result of a preferential reduction in the recruitment of fast-twitch fibres. On the other hand, the changes in intra muscular pressure, as well as the changes in water content and blood volume of the muscle could have affected the EMG findings. Blood flow can affect characteristics of surface-recorded signals by imposing a low-pass filter medium. This tissue filtering can decrease the frequency content of the signal (Kamen and Caldwell, 1996). Additionally, an increase in blood flow generally increases local temperature, which can change spectral features of the EMG signals (Holewijn and Heus, 1992). Some of the reasons for the dissimilar outcomes of our study compared to previous investigations might include dissimilar methodologies and different muscle groups that were employed to study the EE-induce muscle damage. In addition, different methods have been used to quantify EMG activity. For example, McHugh et al., 2000 obtained their MDF data from an MVT test, while MDF in the current study was derived from isometric contractions at pre-set percentages of subjects’ MVT. In voluntary exercise, e.g. where a MVT is performed, there is always some variation in the instantaneous force due to motivation and other factors. This may consequently increase the variance in EMG data and mask the effect of EE on EMG signal. Therefore, some changes in the EMG parameters during maximal contractions could be attributed to factors such as motivation (Linnamo et al., 2000). By obtaining the EMG data from IC50, which was a constant level of force based on the MVT of day 1, we minimized the effect of subject’s motivation on EMG acquisition. The EMG power spectrum has been shown to be reliable for measurements during isometric contractions with a given intensity, repeated over separate days (Linnamo et al., 2000). Additionally, the magnitude of muscle damage might have been relatively less in McHugh et al., 2000 compared to our study. Although they did not assess CK, the percentage of decrease in muscle strength after EE in the McHugh and colleagues’ (2000) study (10%) was less than ours (45%). A lower reduction in MVT (and probably a less magnitude of muscle damage) could be due to the lower level (60% of MVT) of EE intensity that they employed to induce muscle damage, compared to our study (on average 100% MVT). Further more, McHugh and colleagues (2000) assessed the myoelectric activity of hamstrings. Their subjects, therefore, sat on the EMG electrodes during the tests. Sitting on the electrodes during hamstring contractions might have changed the orientation of the electrodes to the motor point of the respective muscles (McHugh, 2000) One of the methodological differences that could be observed between our study and that of Berry and co-workers (1990), is that their group employed mean frequency, resulting from 10 subsequent samples. Averaging the mean frequency values possibly smoothed their results. Besides, Berry et al., 1990 performed their EMG assessments while their subjects lifting their own legs off the ground. Although, the same assessments were performed before and after EE, it is not clear that this leg-lifting was equivalent to any known percentage of MVT. However, one can assume that the leg -lifting exercise would require a force level of much lower than 50% of MVT. The myoelectrical behaviour of muscles could be different during low vs. high intensity contractions (Felici, 1997). In other words, the higher force produced during EMG acquisition in our study compared to that of Berry et al., 1990, probably better revealed any physiological changes within the muscle. In this study, we observed that MDF decreased over time during sustained isometric contractions (Figure 1). These decrements, which were shown as MDF slopes, were present in both Control and Exercised arms and at both intensities (IC50 and IC80). However, there were not any significant day-to-day changes amongst the slopes obtained from different arms and different intensities (Table 1). This suggests that in a sustained situation such as a 20-s isometric contraction, the rate of decrease in MDF, which could be also assumed as a rate of fatigue, was independent of EE-induced muscle damage. A possible mechanism for the decrease in MDF during prolonged contractions is the external accumulation of potassium ions (Mills and Edwards, 1984). An outward leakage of potassium resulting in an ionic imbalance around sarcolemma might slow the action potential and consequently decrease MDF (Day et al., 1998). Kroon and Naije (1991) observed a significant increase in the slope of mean power frequency immediately after EE, which recovered gradually within the consequent few days. Although our results followed a similar pattern to those of Kroon and Naije (1991), the changes in regression slope coefficient observed in our study were not statistically significant (Table 1). The reasons for this disparity of findings are not clear. Kroon and Naije (1991) recruited five subjects, which is a relatively small group compared to our cohort (n = 10). This might have induced larger inter-subject variations in EMG parameters. They did not delete any of the EMG data obtained during isometric contractions, while we deleted the first and the last 2-s to skip the transition phenomenon that could affect the EMG outcomes. Finally, their subjects performed different numbers of eccentric contractions at 40% of their MVT before they become exhausted, while in our study, the subjects performed a constant number of contractions (2 sets of 35) at 100% MVT (on average). A lower EE intensity could, therefore, result in a lesser magnitude of muscle damage, and this might have affected the fibre recruitment and consequently the EMG signals after EE. Although, our findings showed significant arm-by-day interactions for RMS regression intercepts during IC80 (Figure 5), the overall changes did not follow a consistent trend or pattern. Similarly, we did not observe a consistent pattern of changes in RMS intercept and slope at IC50, as well as RMS slope at IC80. Therefore, it seems that RMS does not provide reliable information about muscle recovery after muscle damage. These results supported the findings of other authors who either did not find any significant changes in RMS after EE (Sayers et al., 2001), or their RMS data was not statistically linear, and they did not perform further statistical analyses on RMS (Felici et al., 1997). However, our findings were not in line with the increased RMS observed by Berry et al., 1990 and Kroon and Naije (1991) after EE. The added variance introduced by electrode repositioning influences amplitude more than frequency parameters such as MDF (Merletti et al., 1995; Felici et al., 1997). This could result in observing different findings among different studies. |