Velocity dependence of eccentric strength in young and old men: the need for speed!
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older adults better maintain eccentric strength relative to isometric strength, as indicated by a higher ratio of eccentric:isometric torque as compared with younger adults. The effect of increasing angular velocities (>200°/s) on the age-related maintenance of eccentric strength has not been tested and thus it is unknown whether the eccentric:isometric ratio is velocity dependent in old age. The purpose of this study was to investigate eccentric strength of the ankle dorsiflexors over a large range of lengthening angular velocities in young and older men. Isometric neuromuscular properties were assessed on a HUMAC NORM dynamometer. Nine young (∼24 years) and 9 older (∼76 years) healthy men performed maximal voluntary eccentric contractions at angular velocities of 15-360°/s. Despite near full voluntary activation (>95%), the older men were ∼30% weaker than the young men for isometric strength (P < 0.05). Across all lengthening velocities, older men had a greater eccentric:isometric ratio than young men (P < 0.05). Additionally, there was a velocity dependence of strength in both young and older men: eccentric strength increased as velocity increased up to 120°/s (P < 0.05) and plateaued thereafter. In young and older men, eccentric strength at 15°/s was ∼20% and ∼40% greater than isometric strength (P < 0.05), while at 360°/s eccentric strength was ∼50% and ∼90% greater, respectively (P < 0.05). These findings indicate that with increasing angular velocity, both young and older men have considerable increases in the eccentric:isometric ratio of torque production.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".