The magnitude of muscle strain does not influence serial sarcomere number adaptations following eccentric exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is generally accepted that eccentric exercise, when performed by a muscle that is unaccustomed to that type of contraction, results in a delayed onset of muscle soreness (DOMS). A prolonged exposure to eccentric exercise leads to the disappearance of the signs and symptoms associated with DOMS, which has been referred to as the repeated bout effect (RBE). Although the mechanisms underlying the RBE remain unclear, several mechanisms have been proposed, including the serial sarcomere number addition following exercise induced muscle damage. In the traditional DOMS and RBE protocols, muscle injury has been treated as a global parameter, with muscle force and strain assumed to be uniform throughout the muscle. To assess the effects of muscle‐tendon unit strain, fiber strain, torque and injury on serial sarcomere number adaptations, three groups of New Zealand White (NZW) rabbits were subjected to chronic repetitive eccentric exercise bouts of the ankle dorsiflexors for 6 weeks. These eccentric exercise protocols consisted of identical muscle tendon unit (MTU) strain, but other mechanical factors were systematically altered. Following chronic eccentric exercise, serial sarcomere number adaptations were not identical between the three eccentric exercise protocols, and serial sarcomere number adaptations were not uniform across all regions of the muscle. Peak torque and relaxation fiber strain were the best predictors of serial sarcomere number across all three protocols. Therefore, MTU strain does not appear to be the primary cause for sarcomerogenesis, and differential adaptations within the muscle may be explained by the nonuniform architecture of the muscle, resulting in differential local fiber strains.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".