The effects of adding single-joint exercises to a multi-joint exercise resistance training program on upper body muscle strength and size in trained men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was compare changes in upper body muscle strength and size in trained men performing resistance training (RT) programs involving multi-joint plus single-joint (MJ+SJ) or only multi-joint (MJ) exercises. Twenty young men with at least 2 years of experience in RT were randomized in 2 groups: MJ+SJ (n = 10; age, 27.7 ± 6.6 years) and MJ (n = 10; age, 29.4 ± 4.6 years). Both groups trained for 8 weeks following a linear periodization model. Measures of elbow flexors and extensors 1-repetition maximum (1RM), flexed arm circumference (FAC), and arm muscle circumference (AMC) were taken pre- and post-training period. Both groups significantly increased 1RM for elbow flexion (4.99% and 6.42% for MJ and MJ+SJ, respectively), extension (10.60% vs 9.79%, for MJ and MJ+SJ, respectively), FAC (1.72% vs 1.45%, for MJ and MJ+SJ, respectively), and AMC (1.33% vs 3.17% for MJ and MJ+SJ, respectively). Comparison between groups revealed no significant difference in any variable. In conclusion, 8 weeks of RT involving MJ or MJ+SJ resulted in similar alterations in muscle strength and size in trained participants. Therefore, the addition of SJ exercises to a RT program involving MJ exercises does not seem to promote additional benefits to trained men, suggesting MJ-only RT to be a time-efficient approach.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".