Greater bilateral deficit in leg press than in handgrip exercise might be linked to differences in postural stability requirements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bilateral deficit is defined as the difference in the summed force between contracting muscles alone and contracting contralateral homologous muscles in combination. The purpose of the study was to investigate how postural stability influences bilateral deficit by comparing an exercise requiring more postural stability (the leg press) with an exercise requiring less postural stability (the handgrip). Eight participants volunteered for the study (3 males, 5 females). Maximal strength was determined by a 1-repetition maximum for the leg press (weight machine) and handgrip (dynamometer) exercises. Electromyography was used to measure activation of the effectors (flexor carpi ulnaris for the handgrip and vastus lateralis for the leg press) and the core muscles (rectus abdominis and external obliques). Bilateral deficit was greater in the leg press (-12.08 +/- 10.22%) than the handgrip (-0.677 +/- 5.00%; p < 0.05). Muscle activation of the effectors and core muscles was not significantly different between unilateral and bilateral conditions for either exercise. However, core muscle activation was significantly greater during the leg press (48.30 +/- 19.60 microV) than during the handgrip (16.50 +/- 8.10 microV; p < 0.05) exercise. These results support the hypothesis that an exercise requiring more postural stability (e.g., the leg press) will have a larger deficit and greater activation of core muscles than an exercise requiring less postural stability (e.g., the handgrip). Since the bilateral deficit was only apparent for the leg press exercise, we conclude that postural stability requirements might influence the magnitude of bilateral deficit.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".