Background Accentuated eccentric loading (AEL) is a resistance training (RT) method applying greater eccentric- than concentric-phase load to intensify the training stimulus; however, despite its common use, a comprehensive and quantitative review remains lacking. Objective The aim was to compare acute responses and chronic adaptations between AEL and constant-load RT, and examine whether effects vary by AEL protocol (submaximal, maximal, supramaximal). Methods PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and EBSCO were searched from inception through July 3, 2024; eligible English-language studies were included. Pooled and subgroup meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models. Results Forty-nine studies involving 773 participants were included. Although considerable variance exists in certain outcomes, our estimated effects suggest that, compared to constant-load RT, AEL results in (1) similar acute responses in loads lifted during the concentric phase (standardized mean difference [SMD] = − 0.16; p = 0.48), mechanical performance at submaximal loads during the concentric phase (SMD = − 0.07; p = 0.37), countermovement jump height both immediately (SMD = − 0.06; p = 0.86) and delayed (SMD = − 0.23; p = 0.44) post-intervention, maximal voluntary isometric force immediately post-intervention (SMD = 0.03; p = 0.89), blood lactate concentration during the intervention (SMD = − 0.06; p = 0.78), testosterone concentration immediately post-intervention (SMD = 0.68; p = 0.15), creatine kinase concentration both immediately (SMD = 0.09; p = 0.72) and delayed (SMD = 0.14; p = 0.48) post-intervention, cortisol concentration immediately post-intervention (SMD = 0.39; p = 0.05), heart rate during the intervention (SMD = 1.18; p = 0.07), acute muscle swelling immediately post-intervention (SMD = 0.26; p = 0.42), muscle electrical activity during the concentric phase (SMD = − 0.01; p = 0.90), and muscle soreness both immediately (SMD = 0.28; p = 0.30) and delayed (SMD = 0.18; p = 0.28) post-intervention; (2) greater acute responses in blood lactate concentration immediately post-intervention (SMD = 0.44; p = 0.03), growth hormone concentration immediately post-intervention (SMD = 0.50; p = 0.01), muscle electrical activity during the eccentric phase (SMD = 0.37; p = 0.01), and rating of perceived exertion immediately post-intervention (SMD = 1.72; p = 0.01); (3) similar chronic adaptations in maximal concentric strength (SMD = 0.12; p = 0.41), maximal eccentric strength (SMD = 0.19; p = 0.58), maximal isometric strength (SMD = 0.03; p = 0.93), countermovement jump height (SMD = 0.04; p = 0.87), muscle fascicle angle (SMD = − 0.10; p = 0.77), muscle fascicle length (SMD = 0.90; p = 0.17), and muscle cross-sectional area (SMD = − 0.06; p = 0.84). Conclusion While AEL augments the eccentric-phase stimulus (higher eccentric load and muscle electrical activity), it also increases metabolic stress and perceived effort, implying a need for longer, more frequent inter-set rests and longer between-session recovery. Given the lack of evidence for superior chronic benefits in strength or muscle architecture over constant-load RT, practitioners should consider these factors carefully. Protocol Registration The original protocol for this review was prospectively registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) in July 2024 (CRD42024561673).

Acute and Chronic Effects of Accentuated Eccentric Loading vs. Constant-Load Resistance Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

期刊论文
出版模式：

开放获取
发表日期：

2026年4月7日

查看全文

Xing Zhang,
Jonathon Weakley,
Hansen Li,
Daniel Marcos-Frutos,
Amador García-Ramos

摘要

Background

Accentuated eccentric loading (AEL) is a resistance training (RT) method applying greater eccentric- than concentric-phase load to intensify the training stimulus; however, despite its common use, a comprehensive and quantitative review remains lacking.

Objective

The aim was to compare acute responses and chronic adaptations between AEL and constant-load RT, and examine whether effects vary by AEL protocol (submaximal, maximal, supramaximal).

Methods

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and EBSCO were searched from inception through July 3, 2024; eligible English-language studies were included. Pooled and subgroup meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models.

Results

Forty-nine studies involving 773 participants were included. Although considerable variance exists in certain outcomes, our estimated effects suggest that, compared to constant-load RT, AEL results in (1) similar acute responses in loads lifted during the concentric phase (standardized mean difference [SMD] = − 0.16; p = 0.48), mechanical performance at submaximal loads during the concentric phase (SMD = − 0.07; p = 0.37), countermovement jump height both immediately (SMD = − 0.06; p = 0.86) and delayed (SMD = − 0.23; p = 0.44) post-intervention, maximal voluntary isometric force immediately post-intervention (SMD = 0.03; p = 0.89), blood lactate concentration during the intervention (SMD = − 0.06; p = 0.78), testosterone concentration immediately post-intervention (SMD = 0.68; p = 0.15), creatine kinase concentration both immediately (SMD = 0.09; p = 0.72) and delayed (SMD = 0.14; p = 0.48) post-intervention, cortisol concentration immediately post-intervention (SMD = 0.39; p = 0.05), heart rate during the intervention (SMD = 1.18; p = 0.07), acute muscle swelling immediately post-intervention (SMD = 0.26; p = 0.42), muscle electrical activity during the concentric phase (SMD = − 0.01; p = 0.90), and muscle soreness both immediately (SMD = 0.28; p = 0.30) and delayed (SMD = 0.18; p = 0.28) post-intervention; (2) greater acute responses in blood lactate concentration immediately post-intervention (SMD = 0.44; p = 0.03), growth hormone concentration immediately post-intervention (SMD = 0.50; p = 0.01), muscle electrical activity during the eccentric phase (SMD = 0.37; p = 0.01), and rating of perceived exertion immediately post-intervention (SMD = 1.72; p = 0.01); (3) similar chronic adaptations in maximal concentric strength (SMD = 0.12; p = 0.41), maximal eccentric strength (SMD = 0.19; p = 0.58), maximal isometric strength (SMD = 0.03; p = 0.93), countermovement jump height (SMD = 0.04; p = 0.87), muscle fascicle angle (SMD = − 0.10; p = 0.77), muscle fascicle length (SMD = 0.90; p = 0.17), and muscle cross-sectional area (SMD = − 0.06; p = 0.84).

Conclusion

While AEL augments the eccentric-phase stimulus (higher eccentric load and muscle electrical activity), it also increases metabolic stress and perceived effort, implying a need for longer, more frequent inter-set rests and longer between-session recovery. Given the lack of evidence for superior chronic benefits in strength or muscle architecture over constant-load RT, practitioners should consider these factors carefully.

Protocol Registration

The original protocol for this review was prospectively registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) in July 2024 (CRD42024561673).