The effects of muscle action, repetition duration, and loading strategies of a whole-body, progressive resistance training programme on muscular performance and body composition in trained males and females
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has produced equivocal results with regard to eccentric (ECC) only compared with traditional concentric/eccentric resistance training (RT). When considered in relation to load- and repetition duration-accentuated (ECC) training as well as the use of isokinetic and isoinertial training methods, there is a relative dearth of literature considering multi-joint, multi-exercise RT interventions. The present study considered 59 male and female participants randomly divided in to 3 sex counterbalanced groups; ECC only (ECC, n = 20), repetition duration-accentuated ECC (ECC-A, n = 20), and traditional (CON, n = 19) performing full-body, effort matched RT programmes for 2 days·week−1 for 10 weeks. Outcomes were muscular performance, including absolute muscular endurance and predicted 1-repetition maximum, in addition to body composition. No significant between-groups differences were identified for change in muscular performance measures for leg press or chest press exercises, or for body composition changes. Analyses revealed a significantly greater improvement for CON compared with ECC groups (p < 0.05) for change in absolute muscular endurance for the pull-down exercise. Effect sizes for muscular performance changes were moderate to large for all groups and exercises (0.75–2.00). The present study supports previous research that ECC-only training produces similar improvements in muscular performance to traditional training where intensity of effort is controlled. Data herein further supports the use of uncomplicated, low-volume RT to momentary failure as an efficacious method of improving muscular performance in trained persons.
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 | 0.001 | 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".