View clinical trials related to Muscle Damage.
Filter by:Purpose: To investigate the impact of exercise load on resistance exercise-induced muscle damage in untrained males and females. Rationale: Unaccustomed resistance exercise can cause muscle damage, presenting as muscle soreness and reduced muscle function - such as loss of strength, power, and flexibility - for several days after the exercise bout. Therefore, individuals may require longer recovery periods before performing another exercise bout, and their performance may be impaired. Further, muscle soreness may reduce exercise compliance, particularly in novice individuals. Over time, this may compromise the gains in muscle mass and strength achieved through exercise training. Therefore, strategies to reduce the severity of exercise-induced muscle damage and/or to enhance post-exercise recovery processes are advantageous for exercising individuals. One such strategy is to perform resistance exercise with lighter loads, i.e. <70% one repetition maximum (1RM). Low-load resistance training has shown to induce comparable gains in muscle mass and strength to high-load (≥70% 1RM), while being perceptively less exerting. Low-load resistance exercise may place less mechanical stress on muscle fibres and accordingly, its impact on muscle damage has been investigated. While several studies have reported less severe muscle damage, muscle soreness, and functional impairments with low-load resistance exercise compared to high-load, others have found no differences. Further, there is a lack of studies conducted solely in females or comparing between sexes. It has been suggested that males and females respond differently to muscle damage, and therefore, this research aims to provide a sex comparison in the muscle damage response to an acute bout of resistance exercise performed with low or high loads. Therefore, 40 healthy, young (18-35 years) adults (20 males, 20 females) will be recruited to participate in this randomised controlled trial. Maximal leg strength and body composition (by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; DXA) will be conducted at baseline. In females, all primary outcome measures will be obtained during the late follicular phase of the menstrual cycle. Participants will then be randomised to a low-load (30% 1RM) or high-load (80% 1RM) exercise condition. Three weeks later, participants will complete a resistance exercise session at their allocated intensity on leg extension and leg curl machines to induce muscle damage. Various measures of muscle damage (blood biomarkers, muscle soreness, flexibility, and swelling) will be obtained before, immediately after, and 24, 48, 72, and 168 h after the exercise protocol. The maximal strength test will be repeated 72 and 168 h after the exercise. Participants' habitual activity and dietary intake will be monitored and controlled throughout the study period. Expected outcome: It is expected that the resistance exercise protocol will induce muscle damage, which will be less severe in the low-load exercise condition. It cannot be ascertained whether males and females will have the same responses to the exercise.
Since the first successful spinal fusion surgery using a modern stabilization technique in 1909, surgical fusion has become one of the most commonly performed procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. The incidence of lumbar spinal fusion for degenerative conditions has more than doubled from 2000 until 2009. Despite the high incidence of fusion surgery, the decision making in lumbar fusion surgery is complicated by a wide variety of indications (the greatest measured in any surgical procedure). This could indicate there might be an overuse of lumbar fusion. However, decompression alone, or non-operative care for degenerative conditions may risk progressive spinal instability, intractable pain, and neurological impairment. These complications in the absence of fusion surgery, clearly demonstrate the beneficial effects of adding spinal fusion surgery. Because of its beneficial effect and high usage, it is of greatest importance to reduce postoperative disability and pain, by diminishing surgical invasiveness. Traditional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) are used to treat degenerative diseases of the spinal column. These techniques require an extensive dissection of the paraspinal musculature, which in term can lead to muscle denervation, loss of function, muscular atrophy, and spinal instability. It has also been known that paraspinal muscle damage induced during surgery is related to long term disability and pain. With this knowledge, minimally invasive spine surgery began to develop in the mid-twentieth century. Since then, new direct approaches to the lumbar spine, known as lumbar lateral interbody fusion (LLIF), direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF), or extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), have been introduced. This study will focus on XLIF. Ozgur. 2006 first reported the XLIF procedure, as a minimally invasive procedure that approaches the spine from the lateral via the space between the 12th rib and the highest point of the iliac crest. This approach allows direct access to the intervertebral disc space without disruption of the peritoneal structures or posterior paraspinal musculature. Ohba. 2017 compared XLIF with percutaneous pedicle screws to traditional PLIF, and found that PLIF was associated with less intraoperative blood loss, postoperative white blood cell (WBC) counts, C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, and creatine kinases (CK) levels, indicating less muscle damage. Postoperative recovery of performance was significantly faster in the XLIF group. 1-year disability and pain scores were also significantly lower in the XLIF group. Despite these significant better results reported in the XLIF group, the systematic review of Barbagallo. 2015 concluded that there is insufficient evidence of the comparative effectiveness of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (XLIF) versus PLIF/ TLIF surgery. This indicates that the evidence for choosing between XLIF or a traditional approach is still scarce, and no recommendations can be made. This study will focus on comparing XLIF to PLIF. The objective of this study is to compare clinical and structural outcome measures between the XLIF and PLIF groups, to confirm our hypothesis that the minimally invasiveness of the XLIF technique facilitates a significant faster post-operative recovery, and improves functional and structural outcomes.
This study aims to evaluate the effects of branched-chain amino acids (BCAA) supplementation on resistance exercise-induced muscle damage and inflammation.