Talk:Delayed onset muscle soreness/Archive 1

Misc

This report could be of interest. From Umea University, Sweden. 138.227.189.8 11:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. And the only reason I came to check up on this article was because my legs are hurting from suddenly doing barbell squats with heavy poundage after a two-month hiatus. Anyway, if I get the article correctly, DOMS is caused by reconstruction of sarcomeres and myofibrils in the fibers. Anyone wish to consider adding this into the article? CABAL 14:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've been waiting for that too. I am not so good in the english language to do that by my self, so... Crizz 1 July 2005 10:00 (UTC)

I'm still looking around for other journal articles that support this theory. A single source is never reliable enough. CABAL 1 July 2005 12:16 (UTC)

Lactic buildup

Isn't lactic buildup still a valid theory. It certainly makes sense because you can get rid of soreness if you move around a little (not exercise) when you have muscle sores. Maybe muscle sores come from both lactic buildup and muscles reinforcement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.76.30.78 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 2 October 2005

DOMS can last for a few days. Lactic acid is flushed in far shorter time than that. CABAL 03:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Lactic acid(actually lactate) is associated with sore muscles, but it has been shown not to be the cause of the soreness. It has been found that people with greater endurance have higher levels of lactate, and with some further experiments showed that lactate is actually beneficial for reducing soreness and protecting the muscles.

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1314443.htm

http://www.time-to-run.com/theabc/lactic.htm

njh 23:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• A couple of things on lactic acid as the cause of DOMS. Here are a few articles that suggest lactic acid is NOT the cause of DOMS, but rather hydroxyproline. The second article also explains why it is not advisable to "seek out" the soreness, i.e. the soreness is from microtrauma and is not a good thing. I'd update the article but I just don't have time.
  • http://cbass.com/Lacticacid.htm
  • http://drsquat.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5102

Amnion (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Clean-up

I have tagged this page for clean-up. Needs a possible re-write. I will do this soon, any extra input is welcomed. Cavell 06:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The following pair of sentences seem to directly contradict each other:

Training does not make an existing DOMS worse, because the reinforcement process is already underway. As training will induce further damage to the muscles and thus more hypertrophy and reinforcement, it can add more swelling and pain, and lengthen the period of DOMS.

What does "to make worse" mean, if not more swelling, more pain, and longer? So does training worsen DOMS or not? Someone who knows more than me needs to fix this.--MattMadden 03:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

is the muscle sorness suposed to happen after each workout to indicate that your muscles are building

The first time I lifted I was sore all over the next day. But then the next time I lifted I wasn't sore so I added more weight and I'm still not sore, but I was completly fatiged so I don't know if I'm building muscle. So if I dont get sore am I still building muscle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.110.180 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 20 January 2006

Yes, DOMS stops occuring significantly after a bit. I suggest you ask at a forum with a lot more people, such as the one over at [www.bodybuilding.com]. They will be able to provide a lot more information. CABAL 11:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

People (like me) who do Soviet dual-factor routines with huge-volume loading phases such as Sheiko or Smolov find DOMS vanishes altogether within a few sessions. Yet come back after a low volume mesocycle onto high volume and the first session back, even though it starts at the lowest intensity, produces killer DOMS. I think a lot of Bodybuilders are following split routines where they are permanently never doing enough frequency per muscle to really adapt to the DOMS. So this reinforces the idea that a harder training=more DOMS=bigger gains - where in fact if they where to squat 3-4 times a week, DOMS would be far less (but the training load is far more brutal - hence the whole deload+intensify that becomes imperative on Smolov et al). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.212.156.48 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 15 November 2006

That input was incredibly brutal, dude. I have to take some time out of my day to salute your gnarly, huge-volume, soviet ass. Brutal!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.244.205 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 27 July 2008

Re:Clean-up

Um anybody who's ever done weight training can tell you that futher training makes doms worse. I cant reference this, just try doing drop sets every day for a week if u dont belive me ;). though is often reccomended so long as a pause is taken and full recovery is achived before overtraining happens. Prepetual doms training WILL cause overtrainig. Futhermore many exirienced bodybuilders find they get the best gains without doms, eg trainig less hard but with higher frequency. Chek out Hypertrophy specific training. http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/hst_index.html Now startig to get quite popular.

The referenced article also points to inflamation as as sourse of pain, this should be noted in the wiki article.

if u check out this link there are some studies which also imply oxidative stress is a factor http://www.mindandmuscle.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=20907&st=30

Lastly id like to point out that NSAIDs inrceasec recoveery time and slow growth http://www.mindandmuscle.net/mindandmuscle/magpage.php?issueID=34&artID=999409 , they also cause 43% of drug-related emergency in the US NSAIDS. Id like to put a warinig beside that one.

oh and no offence but Bodybuilding.com has one of the worst forms ever. Check out http://www.mindandmuscle.net/forum/ http://forums.1fast400.com/ http://www.avantlabs.com/forum/

--Turgonml 15:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleted

Someone deleted majority of this article. Can anybody redo deleting? --Kenny 10:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

simple English

is there any non technical English word to define DOMS? I assume that people in the groucery store don't talk to each other about their Delayed onset muscle soreness after last weekend hiking...do you people in English simply call it "pain" or is there any word to refer to this special kind of discomfort? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 21:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

in Spanish (from Spain) we do have the colloquial term "agujetas" (actually I am not sure if we have the technical equivalent ourselves ;) but I have noticed that other languages dont seem to have a term for this...

In English, it's a technical term. Much like someone would say "I had a heart attack" rather than "I had a myocardial infarct", people would say "I'm sore from hiking" rather than saying "I have delayed-onset muscle soreness from hiking two days ago." The only people who would use DOMS in conversation would probably be professionals and researchers. WLU 23:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

ok, then it is just "sore"...thanks WLU!

Delayed onset muscle fatigue

though I may be wrong (which is why I havnt made the changes): "Delayed onset muscle soreness" and "Delayed onset muscle fatigue" are the same thing. I cannot find "Delayed onset muscle fatigue" page in wikipedia and so I recommend someone creates one and makes it redirect to this page "Delayed onset muscle soreness". [[User:Cs1kh]] (talk) 08:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

cramps?

DOMS is just regular old muscle soreness, right? The first sentence says it's also called "cramps," but I think of cramps as something totally different, like sharp pains in the midsection while running. Is DOMS really called cramps? --Allen (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I see now the cramps thing was the most recent edit by an anon. I reverted, but feel free to re-revert if I'm wrong and there's a source. --Allen (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Strength loss (reference?)

The sentence "DOMS typically causes stiffness, swelling, strength loss, and pain." has two references, but none can be consulted freely via Internet. Does any of these references back strength loss, and if so, which one does? --Chealer (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Muscle Contraction

"Muscle contraction seems to be a key factor in the development of DOMS"

well, gee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.244.205 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 27 July 2008

References

I've removed the following links from the external links section - they're reliable, but should be integrated as inline citations rather than as external links. WLU (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• 'Early events in stretch-induced muscle damage'
• Delayed-onset muscle soreness - Work out now, pay later?

Advertising?

I assume "Other ways that DOMS can be reduced is by wearing Skins compression garmet, with Bio Acceleration Technology. These new innovation into the world of sport have really been able to help athletes achieve their goals by reducing DOMS." was put in by someone with an interest in the product? No references. I notice that the Skins_(compression) page has been deleted as "blatant advertising". I think this para should be deleted. --Tommfuller (talk) 08:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just removed the following line:

"Other ways that DOMS can be reduced is by wearing Skins compression garmet, with Bio Acceleration Technology. These new innovation into the world of sport have really been able to help athletes achieve their goals by reducing DOMS."

I felt this was blatent advertising which contained no references. Besides that, it really got my goat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.24.204.7 (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Continuous compression of the affected area did result in reduced soreness, reduced swelling and faster restoration of strength/ power and faster restoration of full range of movement in the study by Kraemer et al (2001) BUT this is the only study i could find to support the use of this method. it seems overly bold to cling to one study as a rationale for the use of a anti-DOMS treatment method. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.81.141 (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Data and Conclusions

According to the existing body of research, DOMS looks to be a pain caused by inflammation of the extracellular connective tissue surrounding muscle fibers. It's correlated with eccentric overload and the subsequent changes to the muscle fibers - which are often thought of as 'damage' but that's an inaccurate description - but there is no cause-effect relationship. The current description as written in the article is incorrect - as are some of the conclusions regarding strength/resistance training.

DOMS, muscle fiber damage, and actual adaptation of muscle fibers (hypertrophy/growth) are three entirely separate and largely unrelated processes - and they should be indicated as such. I've written a fairly comprehensive review of the current DOMS research to justify that position, if anyone is interested in adding the link:

http://www.ampedtraining.com/articles/doms-muscle-soreness

121.45.248.218 (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I completely agree, this article really needs to be rewritten. The first cause it mentions is

caused by the breakdown of muscular fibres

which is a taken from a page lacking any scientific research data and having no references to any. -- Kvasi (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Does it improve muscles

So what's the vote? Some say when time is allowed for recovery your muscle resistance will improve, while others say does little to improve strenght and can only further damage the body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinnerman1928 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've rewritten the article based mostly on what appears to be the most thorough easily accessible secondary source, as per WP:MEDRS. The previous article relied mostly on primary or tertiary sources and had various other deficiencies, including noncompliance with MOS:MED and substantial gaps in coverage.  Sandstein  23:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Palpitation?

In the mechanism section, palpitation should read palpation. 208.68.21.28 (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks!  Sandstein  21:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Delayed onset muscle soreness

You claim that the source I used in the article Delayed onset muscle soreness is "(unpublished? unreviewed?)". It's doctoral thesis and that thesis lists five papers supporting it. The theory you claim is the "summary of current mainstream research in Nosaka's 2008 textbook" actually references Yu & Thornell in the chapter of DOMS. (Yu, Ji-Guo is the author of the doctoral thesis I used as source) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvasi (talk • contribs) 13:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this refers to this revert. I see the following problems with what you wrote:

• As a source about DOMS in general, the 2003 thesis by Yu Ji-Guo is not as good as Nosaka's 2008 textbook chapter:

• It is older.
• Our sourcing policy WP:V tells us: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It is not clear whether the thesis has ever been published in a peer-reviewed publication. In contrast, Nosaka's text is in a textbook by a reputable scientific publisher.
• The thesis is a primary source, proposing one possible cause for DOMS, while a textbook is a secondary source, anaylzing and weighing multiple papers and studies. Per our policy WP:PSTS, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources".

• Your edit makes the article reflect essentially the approach of one author, Yu Ji-Guo. But as Nosaka's textbook shows, other scientific theories exist. Per our policy WP:UNDUE, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint".

In short, we should aim to emulate a textbook, giving an overview of the state of current research, and not simply choosing one particular author and following their ideas, whether or not we believe that these are correct or not.  Sandstein  15:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If we are "giving an overview of the state of current research" I see no reason why other theories should not be mentioned. -- Kvasi (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Muscle reversion

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)

Concentric contraction

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)

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: http://adisonline.com/sportsmedicine/Abstract/2003/33020/Delayed_Onset_Muscle_Soreness__Treatment.5.aspx (although there is not much that seems to contradict Nosaka from my outsider's perspective.)Semitones (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

No pain, no gain

The concept of "No pain, no gain" is relevant to this article because it is a way of thinking about the temporary pain of DOMS. See the following CNN article, where it says "No pain, no gain. Lactic acid build-up. An indicator of muscle growth. These are all phrases that we tend to associate with DOMS. " --211.30.17.74 (talk) 08:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Delayed onset muscle soreness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120906004603/http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Treatment%20and%20Prevention%20of%20Delayed%20Onset%20Muscle%20Soreness.pdf to http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Treatment%20and%20Prevention%20of%20Delayed%20Onset%20Muscle%20Soreness.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Rewritten misleading text

The text previously boldly states that:

"Continued light use of the sore muscle also has no adverse effect on recovery from soreness and does not exacerbate muscle damage."

This is not correct. The cited source says:

"... soreness is not necessarily a warning signal ..."

This has a different meaning!

Furthermore, this is somewhat contradicted by the source when considering repeated bouts, when actually a decreased muscle function was observed.

@Sandstein: User Sandstein took issue with my grammar ("Edits are not an improvement - overly complicated, difficult to read, in parts ungrammatical.") and simply reverted to the misleading text. I asked him kindly to improve the grammar (as I don't see the grammatical errors which he sees) - however he asked instead to move my request here, which I have done hereby. If someone wants to formulate a text that has both good grammar, and correct meaning, I would be more than happy!

Furthermore, I have not read the entire article and suspect there are more such errors lurking here.Tony Mach (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)