NEUROMUSCULAR FATIGUE IN BOUTS OF ECCENTRIC EXERCISE SEPARATED BY 3 WEEKS.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compared with an initial bout of eccentric exercise, a second bout performed after several weeks induces less muscle damage. However, the relationship between this repeated bout effect and the neuromuscular fatigue that occurs during the eccentric fatiguing task remains elusive. PURPOSE To contrast the neuromuscular fatigue and recovery profiles following an initial bout of eccentric exercise with that of the same exercise protocol performed 3 weeks later. In addition, we investigated whether the protective repeated bout effect was sensitive to variations in the number of sets performed when the total number of repetitions was held constant. METHODS Eight men (26±1 y) performed 150 maximal eccentric dorsiflexion contractions using a Biodex System3 isokinetic dynamometer (−60°/s, 30° ROM, 1-s on, 1-s off). Set structure was manipulated such that one leg performed 3 sets of 50 repetitions, and the other leg performed 15 sets of 10 repetitions. These protocols on the same legs were repeated after 3 weeks. RESULTS There was no difference in the isometric MVC or tetanic torque (10, 20 and 50Hz) measured during the 150 repetitions and during a 30-minute recovery period between the initial and repeated bouts for either protocol. MVC torque was impaired 25–30% at fatigue and did not recover in 30 minutes (14–16%). Low-frequency fatigue was seen as a 38% reduction in the 20 to 50Hz torque ratio at 30 minutes of recovery. Irrespective of set structure, a repeated bout effect was demonstrated as a reduction in the impairment of MVC torque that persisted 48 hours following each bout (5% repeated bout vs. 12% initial bout). CONCLUSION The reduced impairment in MVC torque production following the repeated bout of eccentric exercise is not associated with the torque production during performance of the eccentric fatigue protocol. The protective effect is not dependent on set structure if the total number of repetitions is the same. Supported by NSERC and CIHR
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".