The Prevention and Treatment of Exercise-Induced Muscle Damage

[Guest guest]

Carruthers Posted:

you must be overtraining and should periodise your training;)

Casler writes:

I wish that worked.

Sad to say that I do beleive periodization would certainly reduce the day to

day DOMS, but it would also likely reduce my conditioning level.

The training effect and rebound capability changes with age, and sad to say,

I am able to see that. In ones youth, there are periods where you " can "

over-reach, then deload/no load, and gain a rebound. That rebound is

substantially reduced to " deconditioning " after a certain age, which then

leads to lower level stimuli and even greater DOMS but less often.

At least that has been my personal experience.

Carruthers Posted:

Below are comments from Dr Siff regarding this topic:

Growth with and without Damage

In other words, genetic mechanisms can remodel tissues either to

facilitate normal growth, growth stimulated by mechanical effort or

growth to repair damage. The above example, therefore, suggests that

one should be cautious before implicating damage as a central and

necessary process which can explain all hypertrophy. After all, it

would appear to be unnecessarily inefficient and stressful for the

training athlete always to be in a state of damage. Does it sound

logical that damage should be the primary stimulus for all biological

growth? Would it not be preferable to implicate cellular

restructuring orchestrated by genetic programmes in response to

environmental and endogenous stresses (such as increase in tissue

tension).

Then, again, the frequent occurrence of macroscopic tissue injuries

(manifesting as partial or complete tissue ruptures or lesions) among

sports competitors would seem to corroborate the theory that

accumulating micro-injuries and damage are the fundamental cause of

many injuries which are not caused by traumatic impact or accident.

Casler writes:

Mel is of course writing to a General Sports/Training ideal. The mean

audience would be the coach or athlete of a competitive age to which the

recovery period is far more immediate and resilient. He is likely also

suggesting that under a normal Strength/Athletic training system, you can

attain a far higher " level " of conditioning and recovery.

Even 10 years ago, my recovery rate was beyond exceptional for the workload

I placed into the training.

But, now the cycles are different (every 10 days allows an area to

completely recover) The DOMS/EIMD I spoke of is not " whole body " , but

BodyPart specific since I use a 3 way split (Chest/Back, Legs/Torso,

Arms/Shoulders) and train the whole body via this split 3 x a month.

I could option to " reduce " Intensity and workload and " lose " both strength,

TYPE II mass, and conditioning, or continue on, which seems like a more

satisfying option. Not to belabor the point, but there are some very

interesting options to training periodization/cycles/phases, that need more

exploration as we pass 35 or 40, and move into our 50's and beyond.

I know we have several on this list who are in exceptional condition

(especially regarding strength) who likely have explored a few.

Carruthers Posted: (as per Mel Siff)

Possibly we need to distinguish carefully between several different

categories of growth and abandon the hypothesis that all growth is

stimulated by damaging tissue through exercise:

.. Growth occurring as part of the normal maturation process

.. Growth to replace tissues depleted by daily living and ageing

.. Growth regulated by the mechanical stimulation of effort

.. Growth to repair damage caused by excessive levels of tissue stress

.. Growth to repair damage caused by disease or disuse

Casler writes:

I heard a new " stress " term the other day called eustress, which is a term

for " stress " that causes a positive outcome, versus " distress " which is

somewhat negative in its result.

I don't know if I grasp this term correctly, or not, but it seems that the

stressor that " long term " leads to the desired result is " eustress " and the

one that leads to deconditioning is " distress " . At this point, the stress

causing my EIMD seems to still be eustress.

Carruthers Posted: (for Mel Siff)

Sure, strenuous resistance training can produce damage of muscle

fibrils and cells, but it's never been proven that this is a

necessary and sufficient condition for muscle hypertrophy and

strength increase. If this were true, it would mean that all serious

athletes are perpetually in a state of constant muscle damage, and

it's illogical that biological adaptation should rely solely on a

destructive mechanism like this.

<snip>

Adaptation, as opposed to repair, doesn't involve tissue damage and

pain-it depends on painless reconstruction and modification of muscle

cells via communication of the coding mechanisms inside the cell and

the cell membrane. For example, the work of Goldspink shows that

muscle genes are regulated largely by mechanical stimulation, not

mechanical damage (The brains behind the brawn. New Scientist 1 Aug

1992: 28-33).

The marked muscle soreness that a newcomer to a training regime

experiences is DOMS (Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness), which peaks

approximately 48 hours after exercise and has nothing to do with the

training value of the exercise. At best, it generally is a

physiological indicator that you did too much of something new for

too long at a given stage of training, especially if the " negative "

part of the movement was deliberately slowed down or accentuated by

powerful plyometric action.

Casler writes:

Again Mel is addressing a certain " competitive age " athlete, who has far

greater adaptive ability and shorter recovery periods. The additional part

of the equation, is the " window " of stasis of trained conditioning, or the

amount of time one benefits from the conditioning effect of the training

stimulus.

I recall with great lucidity the taper and cessation of all strength

training 3-4 days before a " track meet " (Discus/Shot) and the perceptive

peak of conditioning that could offer, which would last for at least a week

beyond, before feeling like " deconditioning " (especially strength) was

occurring. In fact many times I (think we all) noticed that a even a 2 week

layoff would bring me back evens stronger. This is the rebound effect and

far more evident in youthful athletes/trainees.

Now days, this window is far smaller, and seems to peak a day or so after

the DOMS is gone. And if training is not undertaken soon, deconditioning

begins rather rapidly.

Those Incredible " Rebound Conditioning " days are more limited, and fill a

smaller space.

Carruthers Posted:

======================

Exercise-Induced Muscle Damage in Humans

son PM, Hubal MJ: Exercise-induced muscle damage in humans.

Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2002;81(Suppl):S52-S69.

Extracts:

The mechanism to explain the repeated bout effect is not fully

known. As a general statement, it can be assumed that the damage

produced in the first bout of exercise in some way produces an

adaptation such that the muscle is more resistant to subsequent

damaging exercise. Moreover, even though the first bout may produce

evidence of only mild damage, there is still a prophylactic effect on

a subsequent, more intense bout of damaging exercise.118

Several investigators have suggested that the repeated bout effect

may be explained by neural factors, such as more efficient

recruitment patterns during the second bout.120,12

Casler writes:

The above is another example of the " prophylactic " supposition with " not

enough information " to draw conclusion.

After years of training, it is evident that most if not all true DOMS/EIMD

is caused by the force level during eccentric action. The " protective

effect " is based on the fact that the initial adaptation creates a level of

tissue strength that is " adequate " to not sustain damage as long as the

" concentric " ability limits a similar load increase.

That is, your concentric lifting ability " limits " the eccentric load which

has established tissue strength parameters.

However, if you; perform an exceptionally high number of reps, or in some

way create higher eccentric loads, outside those parameters, then DOMS again

will occur. So the " protection " is conditional within parameters.

So in essense, I think the greater point to understand is that the " limiter "

to this " protective effect " is not simply additional bouts, but the fact

that the concentric ability limits the amount of eccentric force exposure,

and that the " amount " of eccentric exposures (reps) is also of significance.

If one adds a significant number of additional exposures (even at the same

force load) DOMS can be generated. This is evidenced by having the strength

and conditioning to perform standing calf raises with several hundred

pounds, and almost being crippled by having to descend a 30 story building

because the elevator is " out of Order " . In 24-48 hours, you will realize

that the heavy calf exercise did not protect you at all.

My training has a " boat load " of both high force/tension exposures and more

of them . LOL

I guess I can take solace in the fact that virtually " nothing else " makes me

sore.

And then again, who knows? Maybe what I think is DOMS is simply the aches

and pains of becoming a Senior Citizen

Again, great stuff , and worth exploring.

Regards,

Casler

TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems

Century City, CA