Journal of Bodywork & Movement Therapies xxx (2017) 1e8

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Bodywork & Movement Therapies

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/jbmt

Comparative study

Do isometric, isotonic and/or isokinetic strength trainings produce

different strength outcomes?
Sabrina Eun Kyung Lee a, Claudio Andre Barbosa de Lira b,
Viviane Louise Andree Nouailhetas c, Rodrigo Luiz Vancini d, Marilia Santos Andrade a, *
a
Departamento de Fisiologia, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de Sa ~o, Sa
~o Paulo, SP, Brazil
b
Setor de Fisiologia Humana e do Exercício, Laborato ~o do Movimento Humano, Faculdade de Educaça
rio de Avaliaça ~o Física e Dança, Universidade Federal
de Goias, Goia^nia, GO, Brazil
c
Departamento de Biofísica, Universidade Federal de Sa ~o Paulo, Sa
~o Paulo, SP, Brazil
d
Centro de Educaça ~o Física e Desportos, Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo, Vioria, ES, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Introduction: Several studies have been developed to determine which type of muscular action (iso-
Received 21 April 2017 metric, isotonic and isokinetic) elicits more gains in functional strength and muscle mass. The com-
Received in revised form parisons between training outcomes are inconclusive due to lack of exercise standardization.
9 August 2017
Objective: To compare muscle strength, mass, and functional performance in response to isometric,
Accepted 13 August 2017
isotonic, and isokinetic contractions, when training loads (volume and intensity) are equated.
Method: Data were derived from a university community-recruited sample (n ¼ 31 men).
Keywords:
Interventions: Untrained men were assigned to isotonic (IT), isometric (IM), or isokinetic (IK) group, and
Dynamometer
Leg extensors
trained their dominant quadriceps muscle 3 sessions/week for 8 weeks with a dynamometer. Muscle
Concentric strength was assessed using Cybex 6000 dynamometer; the triple-hop-distance test was used to assess
Isometric functional performance, and dual energy x-ray absorptiometry to assess lean muscle mass.
Results: After training, muscle lean muscle mass increased in isometric (þ3.1%, p < 0.01) and isotonic
groups (þ3.9%, p < 0.01); only the isokinetic group showed a significant improvement in the triple-hop-
distance test (4.84%, p < 0.01).
Conclusion: Clinicians should consider isometric training as an alternative for isotonic training to gain
muscle mass, and isokinetic training to improve functional performance of daily activities and/or sports.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Muscle strength is dependent on pennation angle, fascicle
length and muscle cross-sectional area (Malas et al., 2013).
Considering that, it is timely to understand what type of action will
optimize muscle strength.
Isokinetic muscle strengthening has been used with great suc-
cess in rehabilitation of: anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
(Dauty et al., 2014), jumping capacity in athletes (Rouis et al., 2015),
osteoarthritis (Coudeyre et al., 2016), and muscle weakness caused
by Parkinson's disease (Kakinuma et al., 1998).
Isotonic exercises also have been widely used in sports and
~o
* Corresponding author. Departamento de Fisiologia, Universidade Federal de Sa
~o Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Paulo, Rua Botucatu, 862, 5º andar, 04023-062 Sa
E-mail address: marilia1707@gmail.com (M.S. Andrade).
clinical settings. They are suggested to prevent sarcopenia and loss
of muscle strength (Taaffe et al., 2014), and to be incorporated in
early rehabilitation programs (Okoro et al., 2016) (Jørgensen et al.,
2017).
Isometric exercises are another interesting way of improving
muscle function. Such exercises have been used to treat patellar
tendinopathy and to be incorporated in early rehabilitation of the
knee, when the range of motion is limited by pain (van Ark et al.,
2016). Previous studies reported significant strength gains
(ranging from 20 to 35%) after 3e4 weeks of exercise training (Pucci
et al., 2006; Del Balso and Cafarelli, 2007). In this context, it is of
fundamental interest to identify which type of exercise produces
the best structural and functional muscle adaptations.
The studies that have attempted to compare the effectiveness of
isotonic and isokinetic training to enhance strength are contra-
dictory (Kovaleski et al., 1995; Remaud et al., 2010; Chen et al.,
2015). The lack of standardization of strength training intensity

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2017.08.001
1360-8592/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Lee, S.E.K., et al., Do isometric, isotonic and/or isokinetic strength trainings produce different strength
outcomes?, Journal of Bodywork & Movement Therapies (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2017.08.001
2 S.E.K. Lee et al. / Journal of Bodywork & Movement Therapies xxx (2017) 1e8
and volume may be partially responsible for the inconsistency of
the outcomes. Kovaleski et al. (1995) found greater muscle torque
increase in isotonic than in isokinetic exercises, while Chen et al.
(2015) showed better results with isokinetic exercises. Remaud
et al. (2010) found similar significant strength gains in both exer-
cises; however, these discrepancies could be due to high speeds of
isokinetic training (150 and 180 /s) and a relatively low isotonic
training load (40% of maximal voluntary isometric torque at 70 );
probably more pronounced changes could be observed with a more
intense program.
Although the number of studies on different types of muscle
contractions is relatively large, few have compared isometric to
dynamic exercises (Folland et al., 2005; Malas et al., 2013). One
limitation of isometric training is that the strength increases are
specific to the angle used. To overcome this problem, strength-
training series were proposed to be done at different joint angles
(Folland et al., 2005); the authors found that isometric and dynamic
exercises showed similar isokinetic strength gain, but the gains in
isometric strength were significantly greater on the isometrically
trained lower limb. However, the authors stated that a possible bias
may be absolute load discrepancies, once the load used in the
different contractions mode was not the same. Therefore, one aim
of the study was to compare the changes in muscle torque and mass
in response to isometric, isotonic or isokinetic training matched for
equivalent volume and intensity.
Another goal of the current study was to find out if the possible
strength gains resulting from these different types of training are
effective to improve functionality (i.e. performing a task). Func-
tional assessment of lower limbs has increased in recent years.
Designed to replicate the demands of sport and exercise, functional
tests can be used to determine an individual's readiness to return to
play after injury or illness and to detect abnormal limb symmetry or
weakness (Ostenberg et al., 1998).
We hypothesized that training with different muscle actions (i.e.
isometric, isotonic or isokinetic) would elicit greater strength only
for the action trained. We also expect that the performance of the
triple hop distance test will present the great improvement in
isotonic training group, since the muscle contraction is similar.
2. Method
2.1. Study participants
The participants were staff and students from Federal University
~o Paulo (S~
of Sa ao Paulo, Brazil) recruited between January 2013 and
December 2014. The inclusion criteria was to be physically active
(weekly volume of exercise is shown in Table 1), between 18 and 30
years old, and who had not undertaken any specific lower limb
strength training in the last 6 months. For weekly activity charac-
terization, we inquired and assessed their asked about daily living
and physical activities. Specifically, participants were involved once
or twice a week, one hour per day, of aerobic physical activity, such
as running or walking. Participants were instructed to maintain the
level of physical activity during the experimental protocol.
Table 1
Physical characteristics of the participants included in the isometric (IM), isotonic (IT), and isokinetic (IK) groups.
Group Age Body Mass
(years) (kg)
IM (n ¼ 11) 21.7 ± 2.8 72.1 ± 6.2
IT (n ¼ 10) 21.4 ± 2.9 73.3 ± 8.3
IK (n ¼ 10) 22.0 ± 3.4 73.2 ± 11.7
Data are presented as mean ± SD. No statistical differences were found between groups for baseline age (p ¼ 0.94), height (p ¼ 0.85), body mass (0.94), MVIT70 (p ¼ 0.96),
weekly activity (p ¼ 0.63).
Please cite this article in press as: Lee, S.E.K., et al., Do isometric, isotonic and/or isokinetic strength trainings produce different strength
outcomes?, Journal of Bodywork & Movement Therapies (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2017.08.001
Participants were excluded if they presented any knee pain, insta-
bility, edema and limitation of range of motion, and/or previous
injury or surgery in their lower limbs. Initially, 48 participants were
evaluated. From this sample, 42 met all the inclusion criteria.
Eleven participants withdrew from the study for personal reasons,
and thirty-one concluded the study (see Fig. 1). The physical char-
acteristics of the participants are summarised on Table 1. They were
informed of the intent and procedures of the study, and signed a
written consent before data collection. The study protocol was
approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee University and
is in accordance in Declaration of Helsinki; it was registered with
Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (RBR-7dp6hs).
2.2. Experimental design
On the first visit to the laboratory, participants completed a
questionnaire on their clinical status. Those who fulfilled the in-
clusion criteria were directed to anthropometric measures and
strength tests. Muscle torque was assessed via isokinetic dyna-
mometry (Cybex 6000, Ronkonkoma, NY), muscle lean mass were
measured via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA, software
version 12.3, Lunar DPX, Madison, WI) and functional performance
of lower limbs was measured with the triple-hop-distance test.
Anthropometric measurements and strength tests were done in the
same day. Lean muscle mass and triple-hop-distance test were
measured/performed in another same day. The participants were
instructed to maintain their physical fitness habits during the study
period. The two days of tests were performed in the same week.
Prior to the baseline tests, participants underwent a familiarization
test. After the pre-tests, participants were assigned either to the
isometric (IM; n ¼ 15), isotonic (IT; n ¼ 14), or isokinetic (IK; n ¼ 13)
group.
Participants were evenly distributed among the three groups
according to maximum voluntary isometric torque at 70
(MVIT70 ). Before allocating a new volunteer in one of the three
groups, an average of maximum voluntary isometric torque was
assessed and, according to the result of each group, the participant
was allocated. This allocation strategy is known as stratified
random sampling strategy and has been adopted previously
(Remaud et al., 2010). We chose to carefully match the participants
according to their level prior to training sessions to avoid differ-
ences in the baseline strength levels. Two or three days after the
baseline testing the tree groups performed the strength sessions
three times a week for eight weeks. Within two or three days upon
completion of the eight-week training period, all participants were
tested for anthropometric measures, strength and horizontal hop-
test for lower limbs again. The participants were unaware of the
nature of the strength training they would be doing; it was,
therefore, a single-blinded study.
2.3. Participant positioning
Isometric, isotonic and isokinetic torque measurements were
assessed dominant and non-dominant lower limbs were assessed.
Height MVIT70 Weekly activity (h)
(cm) (Nm)
173.7 ± 6.0 231.9 ± 29.0 6.3 ± 3.2
174.8 ± 7.4 228.8 ± 32.3 7.3 ± 3.3
175.1 ± 4.4 230.5 ± 20.0 6.4 ± 3.1
 S.E.K. Lee et al. / Journal of Bodywork & Movement Therapies xxx (2017) 1e8 3

Fig. 1. CONSORT flow diagram.

Limb dominance was determined a the “favorite leg to kick”. Before
testing, the participants performed a 5-min warm-up on a cycle
ergometer (Cybex Inc., Ronkonkoma, NY, USA) at a resistance of
25 W followed by low-intensity dynamic stretch exercises for the
hamstrings and quadriceps (Mascarin et al., 2015).
The participants' position was the same described previously
(Andrade Mdos. et al., 2012). They assumed a seated position on the
dynamometer with their hips flexed at approximately 85 , and
standard stabilization strapping was placed across the trunk, waist,
and shin to minimize additional movement and to provide the
same conditions for all participants. The axis of the dynamometer
was visually aligned with the lateral femoral condyle while the
knees were flexed at 90 . The length of the lever arm was indi-
vidually determined using the length of each participant's lower
leg, and the resistance pad was placed proximal to the medial
malleolus. Following direct measurement of the mass of the lower
limb lever system at 30 of knee extension, gravity correction
procedures were applied according to the manufacturer specifica-
tions to reduce the risk of inaccurate data. The knee was tested from
0 to 90 of knee flexion, with full knee extension considered 0 .
2.4. Strength testing
A 5-min warm up was performed on a stationary cycle ergom-
eter at a low rate (25W and ~50 rpm) before starting each strength
test. The sequence of strength testing was standardized for all
participants: isometric, isokinetic, and isotonic.
2.5. Isometric tests
Participants randomly performed 3 maximal, 3-s isometric knee
extension at four different joint angles: 90 , 70 , 50 and 30 , with
20 s of rest interval between each contraction and another 30s rest
interval between each angle. The maximal isometric torque was
measured at each angular speed and was stored for future analysis.
2.6. Isokinetic tests
Participants performed 3 maximal isokinetic knee extensions
(random order) at three different angular speeds 45 /s, 90 /s and
180 /s, with 30 s of rest separating them. The highest peak torque
measured from each tested angular speed was recorded for future
analysis.
2.7. Isotonic tests
Finally, participants performed isotonic knee extension at
increasing preset torque levels (þ10 Nm) to assess their 1RM,
which corresponds to the maximal preset torque each participant
could overcome only once by reaching at least half of the range of
motion (ROM). The knee ROM was set 90 e0 (0 ¼ leg in hori-
zontal position). A 2-min rest interval was given between the three

Please cite this article in press as: Lee, S.E.K., et al., Do isometric, isotonic and/or isokinetic strength trainings produce different strength
outcomes?, Journal of Bodywork & Movement Therapies (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2017.08.001
4 S.E.K. Lee et al. / Journal of Bodywork & Movement Therapies xxx (2017) 1e8
tests. The maximal torque level was recorded for future analysis.
The same order of angular speeds for the isokinetic tests and
joint angles for the isometric tests were maintained between pre
and post-tests sessions. During each maximal voluntary contrac-
tion, participants had direct visual feedback of the force signal and
equal verbal encouragement (“push as hard as possible”).
2.8. Lean muscle mass
The muscle lean mass of the lower limbs was assessed before
and after the experimental training protocol via dual-energy X-ray
absorptiometry (DXA, software version 12.3, Lunar DPX, Madison,
WI). The “lower limb” was defined as the region extending from the
inferior border of the ischial tuberosity to the distal tip of the toes.
Lean muscle mass was displayed in kilograms (kg). A typical error of
measurement (TEM) for lower limb lean mass is 1.3% (Colyer et al.,
2016). Using the conservative approach of doubling the TEM we
considered 2.6% as minimal change that can be considered a “true”
body composition change.
2.9. Triple-hop-distance test
Functional performance was assessed with the triple-hop-
distance test. Participants performed three consecutive maximal
hops forward with their dominant limb. The distance hopped from
the starting line to the point where the heel touched the ground
upon completing the third hop was measured (Bolgla and Keskula,
1997). All participants performed only three practicing trials for
each limb to avoid the effects of fatigue. A trial was repeated if the
participant was unable to complete a triple hop without losing
balance and touching the ground with the opposite lower limb. The
maximum distance reached among the three trials was measured
(in centimeters) for further analysis.
2.10. Strength training program
To compare isometric and dynamic loading, the volume of
training and intensity were matched (75% of maximal torque for
each type of contraction) so that the relative loading was equated
among the groups. The training took 8 weeks; each participant
visited the laboratory 24 times. Only the dominant lower limb was
trained.
The training sessions consisted of four sets of 10 repetitions of 1-
s contractions using the specific muscular action selected for each
group (1-min rest interval between sets). The IM training consisted
of 75% of maximal voluntary torque measured at four angles of
knee flexion (90 , 70 , 50 and 30 ). A target torque, which was
established from baseline testing, was provided for each participant
on the computer screen and the participants were instructed to
reach or exceed the target torque marker. During each training
session, sets were completed in a different random order and with
1s of rest interval between contractions. The IT training consisted of
75% 1RM determined during the pre-test and the participants were
instructed to take 1s to lift and 1s to lower. The IK training consisted
of angular speed of 90 /s, as the concentric peak torque at 90 /s
corresponded to approximately 75% of the peak isometric torque at
75 of knee flexion (Folland et al., 2002). As ROM of the knee was
set at 0e90 and the angular speed was set at 90 /s, the knee
extension was performed in 1 s, and allowed to passively return to
the initial position. The level of the preset torque was then pro-
gressively increased during the training period for both the IT and
IK groups (new assessment was performed every third week). The
number of sets, repetitions, rest interval between sets, rest interval
between repetitions, and relative load were the same for all groups.
The participants and the researcher who performed the statistical
Please cite this article in press as: Lee, S.E.K., et al., Do isometric, isotonic and/or isokinetic strength trainings produce different strength
outcomes?, Journal of Bodywork & Movement Therapies (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2017.08.001
analysis were blinded.
2.11. Statistical analysis
The design and sample size were planned to identify a robust
difference between training groups of at least 45% of the maximal
voluntary isometric torque at 70 knee flexion in a relatively ho-
mogeneous group of health adults. For this aim we used data from a
pilot study. The target sample size for a p value of 0.05 and power of
80% was 10 participants in each group. Data are expressed as
mean ± SD. A one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to
detect differences between groups for age, height, body mass, and
average weekly daily activity prior to training. A two-way repeated-
measures ANOVA (time x group) was performed to detect differ-
ences among absolute isometric, isotonic, and isokinetic data. The
data were expressed as absolute and relative changes (post/pre-1)
in strength. The analyses were performed at all angles. For isotonic
and isokinetic tests, the 1RM and the peak torques determined at
each angular speed were considered. The statistical significance
was set at p < 0.05.
3. Results
The maximal isometric torque after training increased at all
angles of all the groups, (see Table 2). The mean increase in
maximal torque observed at each angle among groups was not
significantly different (see Table 2). However, when the torque
values of all angles were pooled together, the isometric group
produced overall higher torque (p < 0.0001). The maximal iso-
metric torque increased on average by 30.2 ± 15.8, 15.8 ± 13.7, and
16.8 ± 15.6 Nm, for the IM, IT, and IK groups, respectively (see
Fig. 2).
Isotonic training increased the 1RM torque by 19 ± 8.1, 36.3 ± 5.6
and 17.9 ± 13.4%, in the IM, IT, and IK groups (p < 0.0001),
respectively (see Table 3).
The peak torque increased in all groups at all angular speeds (see
Table 4). The isokinetic peak torque improvements were not
different among the 3 groups at any angular speed individually
(p > 0.05) (see Fig. 3).
Then lean muscle mass of the trained lower limb increased by
3.1 ± 3% (p < 0.0001) in the IM group and 3.9 ± 2.2% in the IT group
(p > 0.0001). The dominant lower limb 1RM gain correlated with
the gain in lean muscle mass (r ¼ 0.51, p < 0.01). Only the IK group
showed 4.8% increase in the triple-hop distance (p < 0.01).
4. Discussion
We showed that 8 weeks of either isometric, concentric isotonic,
and concentric isokinetic resistance training leads to increase in
muscle strength at their corresponding muscle action. Both iso-
metric and isotonic trainings significantly increased muscle mass,
whereas the isokinetic training did not, although it led to an in-
crease in the triple-hop distance achieved. The isometric training
showed to be the most specific, increasing torque by 30.2%. Our
data showed different outcomes for the three types of training even
when load was equated.
Although previous studies have already attempted to compare
the effectiveness of these three types of training, their results are
contradictory (Kovaleski et al., 1995; Wojtys et al., 1996; Remaud
et al., 2010; Malas et al., 2013). Wojtys et al. (1996) found greater
strength gains after 6 weeks of isokinetic training performed at 60 /
s than after isotonic training performed at 70% of 1RM. However,
Kovaleski et al. (1995) reported a greater increase in torque pro-
duction after isotonic training (25% of the peak isometric torque at
70 of knee flexion) than after isokinetic training performed at 120,
 S.E.K. Lee et al. / Journal of Bodywork & Movement Therapies xxx (2017) 1e8 5

Table 2
Maximal torque measured during isometric knee extension performed at 90 ,70 ,50 , and 30 (0 ¼ leg in horizontal position) before (PRE) and after (POST) the training period
of the isometric (IM), isotonic (IT) and isokinetic (IK) groups.

Maximal voluntary isometric torque (MVIT)

Joint angle 30 50 70 90

ISOMETRIC
PRE (Nm) 122.6 ± 18.1 178.7 ± 29.3 232 ± 29 230.4 ± 35.1
POST (Nm) 159.8 ± 23*** 228.8 ± 36.5*** 294 ± 50.9*** 307.7 ± 56.9***
POST/PRE-1 (%) 31 ± 14.7 29 ± 15.5 26.6 ± 12.5 34.2 ± 20.5
ISOTONIC
PRE(Nm) 123.1 ± 23.8 178.4 ± 31.2 228.8 ± 32.3 248.3 ± 35.9
POST (Nm) 139.5 ± 20.9** 200.7 ± 34.51* 262.8 ± 51.6*** 297.3 ± 44.9***
POST/PRE-1 (%) 14.9 ± 15.4 13.4 ± 15.95 14.5 ± 13.4 20 ± 10.3
ISOKINETIC
PRE(Nm) 122.3 ± 29.6 187.5 ± 28.4 230.5 ± 20 239.2 ± 37.5
POST (Nm) 144.8 ± 33.3*** 208.3 ± 29.6* 269 ± 33.4*** 277.1 ± 32.3**
POST/PRE-1 (%) 20.9 ± 21.4 12.2 ± 15.6 16.5 ± 7.4 17.3 ± 15.9

* Statistical analysis indicates a main effect of time p < 0.05; ** Statistical analysis indicates a main effect of time p < 0.01; *** Statistical analysis indicates a main effect of time
p < 0.0001. Data are presented as mean ± SD.

Fig. 2. Box plots of relative torque changes (mean ± SD) of dominant lower limb pooled for all angles after 8 weeks of training for the isometric (IM), isotonic (IT) and isokinetic (IK)
group. (***p < 0.0001, Statistical significant difference between the isometric and isotonic/isokinetic group) (extreme value ( ), median (), 25% and 75%- percentile (box)).

Table 3 sets and repetitions for the training programs (Kovaleski et al.,
Isotonic torque measured during the 1RM test, before (PRE) and after (POST) the 1995; Wojtys et al., 1996), while others did not even equalized
training period, of isometric (IM), isotonic (IT) and isokinetic (IK) groups.
training load, let alone adjusted load progression (Folland et al.,
Torque 1RM (Nm) 2005; Malas et al., 2013). Remaud et al. (2010) tried to match the
Groups IM IT IK different trainings for total external work and mean angular speed;
however, by doing it, the training intensity became rather small to
PRE 146.4 ± 21.1 147.0 ± 14.2 151 ± 20.2
POST 173.6 ± 24.2***x 200.5 ± 22.2***x 177 ± 22.6*** elicit strength gains.
POST/PRE-1 (%) 19 ± 8.1 36.3 ± 5.6 17.9 ± 13.4 These different levels of demand placed on the trained muscle
*** Statistical analysis indicates a main effect of time (p < 0.0001); xStatistical
might be the reason for such contradictions. It is clear that load
analysis indicates a group  time interaction (p < 0.05). Data are presented as should be at least similar among groups if one wants to test the
mean ± SD. isolated effect of muscle action on training (Folland et al., 2005). In
the current study we used a methodological approach based on
relative torque and volume to equalize the loads of the three
150, 180 and 210 /s. One possible reason for these inconsistencies different training programs.
may be related to different methods employed. Some of these The increase in the isometric peak torque at 70 was similar
studies standardized the training load by using similar numbers of among our three groups (26.6%, 14.5% and 16.5%, for IM, IT, and IK

Please cite this article in press as: Lee, S.E.K., et al., Do isometric, isotonic and/or isokinetic strength trainings produce different strength
outcomes?, Journal of Bodywork & Movement Therapies (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2017.08.001
6 S.E.K. Lee et al. / Journal of Bodywork & Movement Therapies xxx (2017) 1e8

Table 4 in dynamic task performance. This may be explained by task

Isokinetic knee extension peak torque performed at distinct angular speeds before specificity, such as static versus dynamic exercise (Jones et al., 1989).
(PRE) and after (POST) isometric (IM), isotonic (IT) and isokinetic (IK) training
period.
Isotonic tests indicate that all 3 groups increased their 1RM
strength. However, there was only a significant difference between
Isokinetic Peak Torque (Nm) the isotonic (higher values) and the isometric (lower values)
Angular speed 45 /s 90 /s 180 /s training programs (p < 0.05). The standardization of the training
ISOMETRIC protocol may have minimized the expression of any specific
PRE 201.3 ± 26.8 179.5 ± 25.3 141.3 ± 18.9 training when 1RM strength was assessed. The isotonic group
POST 230.2 ± 43.8** 199.6 ± 34.2** 157.1 ± 26.4** presented the largest gain in lean muscle mass (3.9%). Colyer et al.
POST/PRE-1 (%) 14.2 ± 12.6 11.5 ± 13.4 11.2 ± 11.6
(2016) performed a study to verify the reliability of DXA; the au-
ISOTONIC
PRE 210.5 ± 33.8 180.2 ± 39 136.2 ± 22.3 thors reported a typical error of 1.3% when lower limbs were
POST 265.5 ± 41.6*** 223.4 ± 31.9*** 162.8 ± 23.7*** assessed. Considering our conservative approach of doubling the
POST/PRE-1 (%) 26.5 ± 11.0 24.6 ± 8.8 21.1 ± 16.0 typical error of measurement, we can classify the lean mass
ISOKINETIC changes observed in this study as “true” body composition changes.
PRE 194.6 ± 45.2 169.2 ± 39 136.9 ± 32.3
The absence any gain in triple-hop distance in the isotonic group
POST 243.0 ± 30.7*** 219.2 ± 32.5*** 165.3 ± 30.1***
POST/PRE-1 (%) 28.6 ± 23.4 32.2 ± 18.0 22.3 ± 13.4 was somehow unexpected. The gain in 1RM did not contribute to
hopping performance. Cordova et al. (1995) also showed that iso-
**Statistical analysis indicates a main effect of time p < 0.01; ***Statistical analysis
indicates a main effect of time p < 0.0001. Data are presented as mean ± SD. kinetic and isotonic strength trainings induced gains in muscle
strength but not in jump performance. In our study, the partici-
pants were instructed to perform the contraction, controlling
groups, respectively). Even though the isometric group (26.6%) cadence (concentric phase completed in 1 s), thus discarding speed
reached the largest for increase, it was not statistically different as a confounding factor. In that case, type IIb fibers and power
from the other two groups. Our results corroborate those from component of the muscles may not have been greatly recruited,
Remaud et al. (2010) that described the lack of angle-specificity what could also partially explain the lack of correlation between
when quadriceps EMG was assessed after training. Nevertheless, gains in strength and triple-hop distance.
when all angles were pooled together, the isometric training All training groups increased peak torque at all speeds tested.
(þ30.2%) was more effective than both, isotonic (þ15.8%) and iso- The more pronounced gains in torque are normally found when
kinetic (þ16.8%) trainings. tested at a speed similar to the trained (Aagaard et al., 1996). Un-
Muscle strength is a sum effect of an early neuromuscular fortunately neither training specificity (muscle action) or speed
adaptation and a later developing muscle fiber growth, which is effects were observed in the current study. A recent study (Murray
evidenced by changes in the muscular cross sectional area (CSA) et al., 2007) also failed to show any speed-specific gain after slow
(Coburn et al., 2006). Despite the 3.1% gain in lean muscle mass due (60 /s) and high (400 /s) speeds. Surprisingly the isokinetic group
to isometric training, this gain was too small to add any extra was the only one that induced no changes in muscle mass.
functional gain. Kanehisa et al. (2002) found only a marginal hy- Apparently training speed plays an important role on muscle
pertrophy induced by isometric training without any improvement hypertrophy when it comes to isokinetic training. Farthing and

Fig. 3. Box plots of relative isocinetic peak torque changes (mean ± SD) of the dominant lower limb pooled for all angular speeds after 8 weeks of isometric (IM), isotonic (IT), and
isokinetic (IK) training (***: p < 0.0001, Statistical significant difference between the isokinetic and isometric groups) (extreme value ( ), median (), 25% and 75%- percentile (box)).

Please cite this article in press as: Lee, S.E.K., et al., Do isometric, isotonic and/or isokinetic strength trainings produce different strength
outcomes?, Journal of Bodywork & Movement Therapies (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2017.08.001
 S.E.K. Lee et al. / Journal of Bodywork & Movement Therapies xxx (2017) 1e8
Chilibeck (2003) compared the effects of eccentric and concentric
training at two speeds, i.e. fast 180 /s and slow 30 /s. They found
that high-speed-eccentric training and the low-concentric training
were the most effective to induce muscle gain. Indeed, Malas et al.
(2013) showed an increase in muscle mass with isokinetic training
when speeds were set at 60 /s, what was much lower than the
speed (90 /s) used in your study.
Interestingly only isokinetic training was able to improve the
triple-hop-distance. It is possible that the speed set at training may
be closer to the joint speed performed during the hop test, making
the training more specific and therefore enables a more efficient
jumping task.
There is controversy on whether isokinetic or isotonic training
produce more functional gains in strength (Wilson and Murphy,
1995). Studies (Helling, 1980; Smith and Melton, 1981) compared
isokinetic training to isotonic training effects on vertical jump
performance. Helling (1980) reported an 18.2% increase in vertical
jump height following isokinetic training, and only an 11.7%
following isotonic training. In another study, two-legged vertical
jump height increased by 5.4% following high speed isokinetic and
3.9% following low isokinetic speed training while their isotonic
group experienced only a marginal increase (1.6%) (Smith and
Melton, 1981). Training at high speeds apparently stimulates type
II muscle fibers and increases muscle ability to generate power
(Kovaleski et al., 1992). Specificity of speed in training is important
during ballistic contractions when activation of high threshold
motor units may occur preferably (Sale, 1988). In our study, the
training was set at 90 /s, which may explain the small improve-
ment in triple-hop-distance. Previously Hamilton et al. (2008)
showed that the triple-hop-distance test was a strong predictor
of vertical jump height.
Our limitation was the absence randomization. We had a main
reasons to choose to assign each athlete to a specific group. We
wanted to balance the muscle strength of different participants,
because if the baseline strength values were different, the response
to the training could be affected. Moreover, the whole protocol was
relatively long (10 weeks) and it was predictable that some vol-
unteers would withdraw, and choosing to assign each athlete to a
group, we ensure the same volunteers number in each group.
In summary, our study showed that isometric and concentric
isotonic trainings are similarly effective at increasing muscle torque
and mass. Isometric training was the most specific among them,
and isokinetic may be a good exercise to improve explosive
strength. Based on the current data, isometric training should be
considered as an alternative strength training since it elicits the
most pronounced and fastest increase in muscle torque and also
showed to be effective at augmenting muscle mass. Further
research is recommended to investigate the neuromuscular
mechanism underlying the strength and hopping performance
gains, as well as extend these results to female subjects or to males
from different ages or physical training levels.
Acknowledgements
We thank all the participants who volunteered to be part of this
study, and the directors of the Centro Olímpico de Treinamento e
~o Paulo, Brazil).
Pesquisa (Sa
References
Aagaard, P., Simonsen, E.B., Trolle, M., Bangsbo, J., Klausen, K., 1996. Specificity of
training velocity and training load on gains in isokinetic knee joint strength.
Acta Physiol. Scand. 156, 123e129.
Andrade Mdos, S., De Lira, C.A., Koffes, Fde, C., Mascarin, N.C., Benedito-Silva, A.A.,
Da Silva, A.C., 2012. Isokinetic hamstrings-to-quadriceps peak torque ratio: the
influence of sport modality, gender, and angular velocity. J. Sports Sci. 30,
Please cite this article in press as: Lee, S.E.K., et al., Do isometric, isotonic and/or isokinetic strength trainings produce different strength
outcomes?, Journal of Bodywork & Movement Therapies (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2017.08.001
7
547e553. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2011.644249.
Bolgla, L.A., Keskula, D.R., 1997. Reliability of lower extremity functional perfor-
mance tests. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 26, 138e142.
Chen, C.L., Chang, K.J., Wu, P.Y., Chi, C.H., Chang, S.T., Cheng, Y.Y., 2015. Comparison
of the effects between isokinetic and isotonic strength training in subacute
stroke patients. J. Stroke Cerebrovasc. Dis. 24, 1317e1323. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2015.02.002.
Coburn, J.W., Housh, T.J., Malek, M.H., Weir, J.P., Cramer, J.T., Beck, T.W.,
Johnson, G.O., 2006. Neuromuscular responses to three days of velocity-specific
isokinetic training. J. Strength Cond. Res. 20, 892e898.
Colyer, S.L., Roberts, S.P., Robinson, J.B., Thompson, D., Stokes, K.A., Bilzon, J.L.,
Salo, A.I., 2016. Detecting meaningful body composition changes in athletes
using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Physiol. Meas. 37, 596e609. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1088/0967-3334/37/4/596.
Cordova, M.L., Ingersoll, C.D., Kovaleski, J.E., Knight, K.L., 1995. A comparison of
isokinetic and isotonic predictions of a functional task. J. Athl. Train. 30,
319e322.
Coudeyre, E., Jegu, A.G., Giustanini, M., Marrel, J.P., Edouard, P., Pereira, B., 2016.
Isokinetic muscle strengthening for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review of
randomized controlled trials with meta-analysis. Ann. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 59,
207e215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2016.01.013.
Dauty, M., Menu, P., Fouasson-Chailloux, A., Dubois, C., 2014. Muscular isokinetic
strength recovery after knee anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction revision:
preliminary study. Ann. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 57, 55e65. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.rehab.2013.10.005.
Del Balso, C., Cafarelli, E., 2007. Adaptations in the activation of human skeletal
muscle induced by short-term isometric resistance training. J. Appl. Physiol.
103, 402e411.
Farthing, J.P., Chilibeck, P.D., 2003. The effects of eccentric and concentric training at
different velocities on muscle hypertrophy. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 89, 578e586.
Folland, J.P., Hawker, K., Leach, B., Little, T., Jones, D.A., 2005. Strength training:
isometric training at a range of joint angles versus dynamic training. J. Sports
Sci. 23, 817e824.
Folland, J.P., Irish, C.S., Roberts, J.C., Tarr, J.E., Jones, D.A., 2002. Fatigue is not a
necessary stimulus for strength gains during resistance training. Br. J. Sports
Med. 36, 370e373.
Hamilton, R.T., Shultz, S.J., Schmitz, R.J., Perrin, D.H., 2008. Triple-hop distance as a
valid predictor of lower limb strength and power. J. Athl. Train. 43, 144e151.
Helling, T., 1980. Effects of Isotonic Training, Isokinetic Training and Jumping.
Practice on the Vertical Jump Performance of College Age Women. Thesis. South
Dakota State University, Brookings.
Jones, D.A., Rutherford, O.M., Parker, D.F., 1989. Physiological changes in skeletal
muscle as a result of strength training. Q. J. Exp. Physiol. 74, 233e256.
Jørgensen, P.,B., Bogh, S.B., Kierkegaard, S., Sørensen, H., Odgaard, A., Søballe, K.,
Mechlenburg, I., 2017. The efficacy of early initiated, supervised, progressive
resistance training compared to unsupervised, home-based exercise after uni-
compartmental knee arthroplasty: a single-blinded randomized controlled
trial. Clin. Rehabil. 31, 61e70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0269215516640035.
Kakinuma, S., Nogaki, H., Pramanik, B., Morimatsu, M., 1998. Muscle weakness in
Parkinson's disease: isokinetic study of the lower limbs. Eur. Neurol. 39,
218e222.
Kanehisa, H., Nagareda, H., Kawakami, Y., Akima, H., Masani, K., Kouzaki, M.,
Fukunaga, T., 2002. Effects of equivolume isometric training programs
comprising medium or high resistance on muscle size and strength. Eur. J. Appl.
Physiol. 87, 112e119.
Kovaleski, J.E., Heitman, R.H., Trundle, T.L., Gilley, W.F., 1995. Isotonic preload versus
isokinetic knee extension resistance training. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc 27,
895e899.
Kovaleski, J.E., Heitman, R.J., Scaffidi, F.M., Fondren, F.B., 1992. Effects of isokinetic
velocity spectrum exercise on average power and total work. J. Athl. Train. 27,
54e56.
Malas, F.Ü., Ozçakar, L., Kaymak, B., Ulaşlı, A., Güner, S., Kara, M., Akıncı, A., 2013.
Effects of different strength training on muscle architecture: clinical and ul-
trasonographic evaluation in knee osteoarthritis. PM R. 5, 655e662. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2013.03.005.
Mascarin, N.C., Vancini, R.L., Lira, C.A., Andrade, M.S., 2015. Stretch-induced re-
ductions in throwing performance are attenuated by warm-up before exercise.
J. Strength Cond. Res. 29, 1393e1398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1519/JSC.
0000000000000752.
Murray, D.P., Brown, L.E., Zinder, S.M., Noffal, G.J., Bera, S.G., Garrett, N.M., 2007.
Effects of velocity-specific training on rate of velocity development, peak tor-
que, and performance. J. Strength Cond. Res. 21, 870e874.
Okoro, T., Whitaker, R., Gardner, A., Maddison, P., Andrew, J.G., Lemmey, A., 2016.
Does an early home-based progressive resistance training program improve
function following total hip replacement? Results of a randomized controlled
study. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 17 (173). http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-
016-1023-x.
Ostenberg, A., Roos, E., Ekdahl, C., Roos, H., 1998. Isokinetic knee extensor strength
and functional performance in healthy female soccer players. Scand. J. Med. Sci.
Sports 8, 257e264.
Pucci, A.R., Griffin, L., Cafarelli, E., 2006. Maximal motor unit firing rates during
isometric resistance training in men. Exp. Physiol. 91, 171e178.
Remaud, A., Cornu, C., Gue vel, A., 2010. Neuromuscular adaptations to 8-week
strength training: isotonic versus isokinetic mode. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 108,
59e69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00421-009-1164-9.
8 S.E.K. Lee et al. / Journal of Bodywork & Movement Therapies xxx (2017) 1e8

Rouis, M., Coudrat, L., Jaafar, H., Filliard, J.R., Vandewalle, H., Barthelemy, Y., Driss, T.,
2015. Assessment of isokinetic knee strength in elite young female basketball
players: correlation with vertical jump. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 55, 1502e1508.
Sale, D.G., 1988. Neural adaptation to resistance training. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc 20,
S135eS145.
Smith, M.J., Melton, P., 1981. Isokinetic versus isotonic variable-resistance training.
Am. J. Sports Med. 9, 275e279.
Taaffe, D.R., Duret, C., Wheeler, S., Marcus, R., 2014. Once-weekly resistance exercise
improves muscle strength and neuromuscular performance in older adults.
J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 47, 1208e1214.
van Ark, M., Cook, J.L., Docking, S.I., Zwerver, J., Gaida, J.E., van den Akker-Scheek, I.,
Rio, E., 2016. Do isometric and isotonic exercise programs reduce pain in ath-
letes with patellar tendinopathy in-season? A randomised clinical trial. J. Sci.
Med. Sport 19, 702e706. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2015.11.006.
Wilson, G., Murphy, A., 1995. The efficacy of isokinetic, isometric and vertical jump
tests in exercise science. Aust. J. Sci. Med. Sport 27, 20e24.
Wojtys, E.M., Huston, L.J., Taylor, P.D., Bastian, S.D., 1996. Neuromuscular adapta-
tions in isokinetic, isotonic, and agility training programs. Am. J. Sports Med. 24,
187e192.

Please cite this article in press as: Lee, S.E.K., et al., Do isometric, isotonic and/or isokinetic strength trainings produce different strength
outcomes?, Journal of Bodywork & Movement Therapies (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2017.08.001