Mechanisms of Fatigue and Recovery in Upper versus Lower Limbs in Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the mechanisms of fatigue and recovery between upper and lower limbs in the same subjects. METHODS: Twelve healthy young men performed a 2-min sustained maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVC) of the knee extensors (KE) and on another day a 2-min MVC of the elbow flexors (EF). Neuromuscular function evaluations were performed with both transcranial magnetic and peripheral stimulations before (PRE), at the end of the 2-min MVC, and five more times within 8 min of recovery. RESULTS: Decreases in MVC and cortical voluntary activation were approximately 12% (P < 0.001) and approximately 25% greater (P = 0.04) in KE than EF at end of the 2-min MVC. Conversely, twitch response decreased approximately 29% more (P = 0.02) in EF than KE. Changes in motor-evoked potential with fatigue were not different between upper and lower limbs (P > 0.05), whereas the increase in silent period duration was approximately 30% greater in EF than KE (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Upper and lower limbs presented different magnitudes of total, central and peripheral fatigue. Total neuromuscular fatigue and central fatigue were greater in KE than EF. Conversely, peripheral fatigue and corticospinal inhibition were greater in EF than KE.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".