MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Cross-education Effects After High Versus Low Frequency, Volume-matched Grip Strength Training.

2016· article· en· W2509407105 on OpenAlexaff
Natasha G. Boyes, Peter Yee, Joel L. Lanovaz, Jonathan P. Farthing

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsometric exerciseMedicineGrip strengthPhysical therapyStrength trainingPhysical medicine and rehabilitationWristHand strengthUpper limbMuscle hypertrophyCardiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unilateral strength training can attenuate muscle mass and strength losses in an opposite immobilized limb. Traditional unilateral training programs that yield these cross-education effects cause inter-limb asymmetry by inducing hypertrophy and strength increases in the trained limb. A higher frequency training program with lower per session volume may attenuate trained limb hypertrophy but still yield cross-education effects, lowering inter-limb asymmetry. PURPOSE: To determine the effects of a high frequency (HF) vs. low frequency (LF) volume-matched 4-week isometric grip strength training program on cross-education of strength. METHODS: Nineteen healthy right-handed participants (age 24±5 years) were randomly assigned to one of two groups: HF (n=10) and LF (n=9). Participants were tested twice before and once after a 4-week, unilateral (right) grip strength training program totaling 120 maximal repetitions per week. HF trained twice per day, 5 days per week, 2 sets of 6 repetitions per session. LF trained 3 days per week, 5 sets of 8 repetitions per session. Measures included maximal isometric grip strength (grip dynamometer) and wrist flexion (NORM dynamometer), muscle thickness (ultrasound), muscle activation (EMG) and voluntary activation (twitch-interpolation). RESULTS: A significant time main effect (p<0.001) was observed for isometric grip strength where both limbs increased from pre to post with no differences between groups (LF right: 42.4±12.2 to 46.6±11.1 kg; LF left: 38.6±10.5 to 42.0±10.4 kg; HF right: 47.6±13.6 to 50.5±13.5 kg; HF left: 43.9±11.9 to 47.6±13.3 kg). Muscle thickness significantly increased in both groups in the right limb only (R: 3.93±0.44 to 4.04±0.45 cm, p<0.05; L: 3.88±0.51 to 3.88±0.49 cm, p=0.897). EMG burst activity (normalized to the maximal M wave), maximal isometric wrist flexion torque, and voluntary activation of the forearm muscles did not change significantly from pre to post training in either arm (p=0.256 to 0.831). CONCLUSION: As predicted, both LF and HF training programs were effective for inducing cross-education of grip strength to the untrained limb; however, contrary to our hypothesis, both programs induced similar hypertrophy in the trained limb. These findings have implications for rehabilitation strategies after unilateral injury.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicSports Performance and Training→French-language works237,207→