Eccentric resistance training increases and retains maximal strength, muscle endurance, and hypertrophy in trained men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of different resistance training protocols on muscle strength, endurance, and hypertrophy after training and detraining. Thirty-four resistance-trained males were randomized in concentric-only (CONC), eccentric-only (ECC), traditional concentric-eccentric (TRAD) bench press resistance training or control group. The training volume was equalized among the intervention groups. Bench press of 1-repetition maximum (1RM)/body mass, maximum number of repetitions (MNR), and chest circumference were evaluated at the baseline, after 6 weeks of training, and after 6 weeks of detraining. All intervention groups reported significant 1RM/body mass increases after training (CONC baseline: 1.04 ± 0.06, post-training: 1.12 ± 0.08, p < 0.05; ECC baseline: 1.08 ± 0.04, post-training: 1.15 ± 0.05, p < 0.05; TRAD baseline: 1.06 ± 0.08, post-training: 1.11 ± 0.10, p < 0.05). After detraining, only ECC retained 1RM/body mass above the baseline (1.17 ± 0.07, p < 0.05), while CONC and TRAD returned to baseline values. Only ECC improved and retained MNR (baseline: 22 ± 3; post-training: 25 ± 3, and post-detraining: 25 ± 4, p < 0.05 compared with baseline) and chest circumference (baseline: 98.3 ± 2.4 cm, post-training: 101.7 ± 2.2 cm and post-detraining: 100.7 ± 2.3 cm. p < 0.05 compared with baseline), while no significant changes occurred in both CONC and TRAD. The incorporation of eccentric training can be recommended for counteracting the negative effects of detraining or forced physical inactivity.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".