Ankle Plantar Flexion Strength in Resistance and Endurance Trained Middle-Aged Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maximum concentric (CONC) and eccentric (ECC) strength of the ankle plantar flexor muscles were compared between middle-aged adults who regularly participated in resistance exercise training versus those who participated in weight-bearing endurance exercise. A total of 40 men and women with a mean age of 48.9 years (SD = 5.3) were tested for CONC and ECC plantar flexor (PF) strength, using an isokinetic device at 3 velocities: 30, 90 and 180 degrees/s. Mean strength values for the groups of men and women involved in resistance exercise were consistently higher than those involved in the endurance training for the CONC tests, where values ranged from 35% to 46% (avg. 41%, p < .01), but less between-group difference was observed for the ECC loading condition: 4% to 30% (avg. 18%). Thus ECC/CONC ratios, which rose with increasing velocity, were consistently higher for the endurance group vs. resistance-trained. Finally, since concentric PF torque values were found to be quite low for the middle-aged women who did only endurance training, this movement may require preventive strengthening exercises.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".