Comparison between old and young men for changes in makers of muscle damage following voluntary eccentric exercise of the elbow flexors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate if old men were more susceptible than young men to muscle damage induced by exercise consisting of repeated-lengthening muscle actions. The responses to a bout of eccentric exercise were compared between 10 young (mean age +/- SEM = 19.4 +/- 0.4 y) and 10 old (70.5 +/- 1.5 y) men. All subjects performed 6 sets of 5 lengthening actions of the left elbow flexors at a range of 90 degrees from an elbow flexed (90 degrees ) to an extended (180 degrees ) position in 5 s using a dumbbell massed at 40% maximal isometric strength (MVC) at an elbow joint angle of 90 degrees . Changes in MVC, range of motion (ROM), upper arm circumference (CIR), muscle soreness (DOMS), plasma creatine kinase activity (CK), and myoglobin (Mb) concentration over 7-10 d following exercise were compared between groups by 2-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). Significant differences between groups were evident at baseline for ROM (significantly smaller for the older group) and CIR (significantly larger for the older group), but not for MVC and other measures. Contrary to the hypothesis, the young group showed significantly larger decreases in MVC and ROM and larger increases in circumference, DOMS, CK activity, and Mb con centration than those of the old group. These results suggest that muscle damage is not necessarily greater in old versus young men following voluntary eccentric exercise. It may be that physiological changes that occur with ageing, including a decrease in ROM, reduce damaging stress to muscles during lengthening muscle actions.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".