Talk:Delayed onset muscle soreness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Concentric contraction[edit]

If concentric contraction does not cause DOMS, then what is the cause of soreness resulting from bicep curls? Tad Lincoln (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There are several reasons. When people typically do bicep curls, or any sort of weight exercise, you're not just lifting the weight and then removing it, you also let it down, and this creates eccentric exercise. Even if you were to try to specifically only do the concentric part of the exercise, if you're exercising so as to maintain control (as most people do because it's the most constructive way to do it and important for avoiding injury), you're also engaging in isometric exercise, and as your muscles fatigue, you will also end up with some eccentric contraction as well. Cazort (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
While it's true that bicep curls do contain an eccentric component, I don't think that means we should discount the possibility of the concentric causing soreness, even if it tends to be less of it. I don't really understand how there's any significant isometric or eccentric component when you are successfully lifting the weight. Failing during a concentric lift (stalling, having to put it down) yeah, but not actually succeeding at it. If we look at forms of exercise which are purely concentric (swimming, sled dragging, uphill sprints), a failure to propel the body/object simply means you stall, at most an isometric moment (at which many people just end the set). How an eccentric contraction plays into that must be very subtle and hard to understand, but even if one agrees it's present, would it not be brief and minimally strong compared to the long periods of time and great amounts of weight that people lift in eccentric-predominant exercise? Is the soreness produced from concentric movements so little as to be in scale to that minimal eccentric component? Ranze (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that means we should discount the possibility of the concentric causing soreness—no, that in itself is not a reason to discount it. We would only discount it if a reliable source discounted it; in this case the Nosaka article. To answer your question, though, bicep curls do have a significant eccentric component, unless when you lower the curl you just let your hands with the weights fall freely onto a table or something—I suppose that is possible but I've never seen anyone do curls that way. The normal way involves very significant eccentric effort. If it's true that DOMS only results from the eccentric phase of an exercise, then that is certainly consistent with getting DOMS from bicep curls. this suggests that concentric contraction can cause DOMS, but much less so than eccentric. Ranze—do you dispute this claim that eccentric contributes way more to DOMS? Do you have any sources? There's no point in us arguing it out here :) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Single Source (Nosaka)[edit]

The article as it is relies very heavily on a single source, the Nosaka, which is a chapter in a book, Skeletal muscle damage and repair, edited by Peter M. Tiidus. I've checked out this source and it looks like it solidly meets WP:RS, being comprehensive, well-referenced, up-to-date, and representing and synthesizing multiple viewpoints. But even if this book is the best work on this subject, it still is one single work, and I still think it is problematic to base an article so heavily off this one work. I added the single source template because I wanted to bring attention to this so the sourcing could be diversified, but User:Sandstein removed it, with the justification that it is "Not problematic in this case because the single source is a textbook that aggregates the literature". I do not think this argument is solid ground to stand on or a good general rule to follow. This reasoning fits with the template documentation on Template:Single_source:

"A single source is considered less than ideal because a single source may be inaccurate or biased. Without other sources for corroboration, accuracy or neutrality may be suspect. By finding multiple independent sources, the reliability of the encyclopedia is improved."

I think that no matter how good one source is, it is still a single source and it is still not adequate for making an article the best it could be. I also was not able to find any wikipedia guidelines or policy supporting Sandstein's assertion that there are any circumstances in which a single source is adequate for a whole article. On this grounds I'm going to re-add the template. Cazort (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I found a couple more sources, Muscle Pain: Understanding the Mechanisms, by Siegfried Mense, Robert D. Gerwin: [1] and Science of flexibility, by Michael J. Alter [2] Cazort (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Indented line

I also noticed this and came to comment. Here is another source: (although there is not much that seems to contradict Nosaka from my outsider's perspective.)Semitones (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Muscle reversion[edit]

Regarding DOMS#Cause, I am reading page 63 (the page cited) right now at google books. I believe the section in question is in the 2nd column titled "Eccentric Exercise and DOMS". The journal Skeletal Muscle Damage and Repair, which published Ken Nosaka's paper, also includes references for studies on which Ken based his writing. Looking at the first:

  • "Eccentric exercise, exercise mainly consisting of lengthening (eccentric) contractions, produces greater DOMS than exercise involving mainly shortening (concentric) or static (isometric) contractions." - Newham et al. 1983, Talag 1973

This contrasts with what is currently written in that section:

"eccentric exercise, that is, exercise consisting of eccentric (lengthening) contractions. Isometric (static) exercise causes much less soreness, and concentric (shortening) exercise causes none."

The terms exercise/contraction seem to be getting confused, yet we overlook the terms 'mainly consisting of' and 'involving mainly' which only suggest that these forms of exercise are named after whatever contraction is predominant (receiving the most stress) rather than exclusively consisting of that form of contraction.

Another statement similarly makes no absolute claims and only makes a relativity statement:

  • "the magnitude of DOMS following isometric exercise is much less than that after eccentric exercise" -Jones et al. 1989

Those three sources on their own do not at all imply that concentric exercise causes no soreness, merely that it (like isometric) cause less of it than eccentric contractions, so that obviously exercise consisting mainly of a more soreness-inducing contraction would have more of it.

The claim that concentric contractions produce NO soreness seems to be implied by a later statement, which doesn't appear to be referenced:

  • "It appears that although pure concentric contractions do not induce DOMS, when people perform repeated concentric contractions in training they also unintentionally perform eccentric contractions"

This claim appears to come from Nosaka himself, as I see no citation accompanying it. No studies are cited as supporting the claim. His guessy statement "it appears" means that he is merely postulating a theory. He has the idea fixed in his mind that concentric contractions do not induce soreness, and is postulating an alternative explanation for how concentric EXERCISE induces soreness (because he clearly accepts that it does) based on a sketchy idea of minute eccentric contractions occuring during the lifting.

His explanation is flawed. He states:

  • "for example, when lifting a dumbbell using the elbow flexors, if we fail to produce a force larger than the dumbbell, our elbow flexors are lengthened while producing force""

The flaw here is that if the force is not greater and the bell isn't being lifted, it's not even a concentric exercise, but rather it would be an isometric one.

I believe that this reference is not a suitable support for Wikipedia. Based on the other references, the only scientific consensus is that eccentric contractions and predominantly concentric exercise produce MORE soreness than concentric ones. Not that concentric contractions can't produce soreness, and certainly not that concentric exercise doesn't.

So I ask: is it possible to change this statement to something a little less presumptuously absolutist? Ranze (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm moving this from my talk page to Talk:Delayed onset muscle soreness#Muscle reversion and will reply there later.  Sandstein  17:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Vitamin C[edit]

I just changed "Consuming more vitamin C does not prevent soreness." to "Consuming more vitamin C may not prevent soreness." One can hardly make so broad-sweeping a claim based on a single study of 24 subjects where vitamin C consumption was only 3g/day. The study itself didn't attempt to draw such a broad conclusion, but rather stated: "Conclusions. The results of this study suggest that a VC supplementation protocol of 3×1 000 mg/day for 8 days is ineffective in protecting against selected markers of DOMS." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)