Effects Of Upper Limb Eccentric Resistance Exercise On Muscle Function In Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resistance exercise (RE) has become increasingly popular amongst older adults and recent studies have reported the potential for added benefit of eccentric (ECC, muscle lengthening) overload, usually in studies involving the leg. Less is known about the potential and/or harmful effects of eccentric overloaded RT in the upper limb musculature. PURPOSE To determine the consequences of a single training session of maximal eccentric RT on muscle function. METHODS Seven healthy older men (73 ± 5yrs, 1.75 ± 0.07m, 82 ± 11kg) volunteered to participate. Outcome measures included muscle soreness; limb circumference; relaxed and flexed arm angle; and isometric (ISO) and concentric (90 & 180°/s) peak torque of the elbow flexors measured on an isokinetic dynamometer. In addition, an assessment was made of constant-force fluctuation at loads of 20% and 35% maximum ISO strength (i.e., steadiness, expressed as a coefficient of variation of the mean force around the target level). The eccentric resistance exercise session comprised 3 sets of 8 maximal eccentric repetitions at an angular velocity of - 60°/s. Outcome measures were recorded on Day 0 (pre- and post-eccentric exercise), Day 2, and Day 4. RESULTS Eccentric (ECC) torque decreased by 22.5% (p<0.01) across the 3 sets of ECC RT. Upper limb circumference and flexed arm angle demonstrated a main effect for time (increases), p<0.01 and p<0.02; respectively, but muscle soreness and relaxed arm angle were not changed significantly. ISO peak torque was significantly decreased (p<0.01) immediately following the ECC RT and remained decrease on Day 2 (p<0.03); however, by Day 4 ISO peak torque did not differ from baseline. CON peak torque at 90°/s and 180°/s exhibited a main effect for time across the 4-day recovery period, p<0.02 and p<0.03; respectively. Constant-force at 20% MVC increased (p<0.05) across the 4-day recover period, while constant-force at 35% MVC decreased (p<0.05) across the 4-day recovery period. CONCLUSION Three sets of 8 maximal ECC repetitions did not produce significant elbow flexor soreness despite notable decreases in ISO and CON peak torque. Eccentric resistance exercise appears to have a greater effect on steadiness of constant-force generation at a 20% level of MVC, versus 35% MVC. Supported by ACSM Foundation and NSERC.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".