Effect of Three Different Muscle Action Training Protocols on Knee Strength Ratios and Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ruas, CV, Brown, LE, Lima, CD, Costa, PB, and Pinto, RS. Effect of three different muscle action training protocols on knee strength ratios and performance. J Strength Cond Res 32(8): 2154-2165, 2018-Hamstring to quadriceps (H:Q) ratios are often used to assess strength imbalances. The aims of this study were to compare 3 different muscle action training protocols on H:Q strength balance and functional performance. Forty untrained men (age: 22.87 ± 2.28 years, mass: 70.66 ± 11.049 kg, ht: 174.29 ± 6.90 cm) performed 6 weeks of training on an isokinetic dynamometer. They were randomly assigned to one of 4 groups; concentric quadriceps and concentric hamstring (CON/CON), eccentric quadriceps and eccentric hamstring (ECC/ECC), concentric quadriceps and eccentric hamstring (CON/ECC), or no training. Mixed Factor analyses of variance were used to compare interactions for variables pretest and posttest between groups (p ≤ 0.05). The ECC/ECC group showed significant increases in H:Q functional ratio (pre = 0.73 ± 0.092, post = 0.87 ± 0.098), ECC peak torque (PT) (pre = 226.44 ± 67.80 N·m, post = 331.74 ± 54.44 N·m), isometric PT (IPT) (pre = 173.69 ± 41.41 N·m, post = 203.091 ± 30.82 N·m), countermovement jump (CMJ) (pre = 52.73 ± 6.95 cm, post = 58.16 ± 6.10 cm), and drop jump (DJ) (pre = 52.91 ± 6.080 cm, post = 58.20 ± 7.72 cm), whereas the CON/CON group increased the rate of torque development (pre = 152.19 ± 65.0074 N·m·s, post = 225.26 ± 88.80 N·m·s). There were no differences between groups for CON PT, squat jump, conventional ratio or 40 m sprint. Our findings suggest that ECC/ECC training may be the most effective at increasing functional H:Q strength ratios, as well as ECC PT, IPT, CMJ, and DJ performance. Eccentric training increases ECC PT, thereby increasing the functional H:Q ratio. Eccentric training also improves vertical jumping involving ECC actions. CON/CON training may be more effective at increasing explosive muscle strength.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".