目的：在於考驗「人體肱二頭肌屈肌群在進行角度－力量曲線、不同彎曲角度（50、70、90、110、140、160度）等長收縮、快和慢速度等速向心肌力等不同測驗方式所測得的最大肌力(MVC)，與傳統90度最大等長肌力測驗方式對評價運動引起肌肉損傷的效果」之假設。方法：讓50位大學健康男性學生使用其非慣用手肱二頭肌群進行一回合30次離心收縮(ECC)，以引起明顯的延遲性肌肉酸痛現象。在ECC之前以及ECC後第0-5天（每間隔24小時），讓所有受試者分別各進行一次角度－力量曲線、6個不同彎曲角度等長肌力、90度等長肌力、快(300°/s)和慢速度(300°/s)等速向心肌力、關節活動範圍(ROM)、上臂圍(CIR)、肌肉酸痛(SOR)、血液肌酸激?(CK)和肌紅素(Mb)等測驗。結果：本研究發現受試者在進行ECC之後，不同測驗方式的肌力和ROM值均出現明顯下降、引起明顯的SOR、腫脹、CK以及Mb出現顯著升高(p<.05)，這些指標在ECC後第5天還未完全恢復至ECC前的水準中(p<.05)。此外，受試者在進行ECC後，不同肌力測驗方式之間的肌力值，在組別及交互作用方面均無差異(p>.05)。不過，90度等長肌力與角度－力量曲線(r=.76~.94)、不同彎曲角度等長收縮(r=.71~.92)所測得最大肌力值之間，在ECC第0-5天之間都有相關(p<.05)；但是90度等長肌力與快、慢速度等速向心肌力測驗之間，在ECC第0-5天之間的結果則無相關(p>.05)。結論：本研究的結果顯示，使用「角度－力量曲線和不同彎曲角度肌力測驗方式，對評估人體肱二頭肌肉群引起肌肉損傷時的效果與傳統使用90度等長肌力方式相同，故建議未來相關研究的實驗設計可能可以考慮使用這二種肌力評量方式。

This study examined five different strength testings (the angle-tension curve, strength at 90°, highest strength at 50° to 160° of elbow flexion, fast and slow speeds of isokinetic concentric strengths) following eccentric exercise-induced muscle damage. Fifty male students were recruited in the study, performing 30 eccentric actions (ECC) of the elbow flexors of 100% of maximal isometric strengths (MVC). MVC at six elbow joint angles, fast and slow speeds isokinetic concentric strengths, range of motion (ROM), upper arm circumference (CIR), serum creatine kinase activity (CK) and myoglobin concentration (Mb), and muscle soreness (SOR) were measured before and for five days following ECC. The results of this study showed that ECC resulted in significant changes (p＜.05) in MVCs, isokinetic strengths, ROM, CIR, SOR, CK, and Mb, and there was not fully recovery of these measures (p＜.05) five days after ECC. There were no significant differences (p＞.05) among the peak strength, the highest strength, the strength at 90°, fast and slow speeds of isokinetic concentric strengths. Strengths at 90° of elbow flexion had a significantly (p＜.05) positive correlation with the peak (r=.76~.94) and the highest strengths (r=.7~.92) gained from six different angles of the elbow flexion immediately after and one to five days after ECC; however there’s was no significant (p＞.05) correlation between strength at 90° of elbow flexion, slow and fast isokinetic strength testing. These results suggested that the peak and highest strengths gained from six different angles of elbow flexion, and strength at 90° of elbow flexion may be regarded as a good indicator of muscle function to damaging exercise.