Isometric training with maximal co-contraction instruction does not increase co-activation during exercises against external resistances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present investigation verified that strength is improved by a training programme consisting of repetitions of maximal isometric voluntary co-contractions without increasing co-activations during contractions against external resistances. Ten participants performed 12 training sessions (four sets of 6 × 4 second maximal isometric co-contraction of the elbow flexor and extensors, 3 days a week for 4 weeks). Surface electromyograms of triceps and biceps brachii were collected during maximal voluntary isometric elbow flexion and extension against a force transducer. Maximal voluntary isometric force increased significantly after training, by 13.8 ± 6.0% (extension) and 9.6 ± 9.5% (flexion), but the observed increases in EMG of agonist muscles during maximal voluntary contraction were not significant. No significant changes in the levels of co-activation of the elbow flexors and extensors were observed. No significant change was observed for all the parameters in a control group of ten participants. These results indicated that the strength improvements after co-contraction training occur without increases in co-activation level.
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 | 0.000 | 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".