Isometric parameters in the monitoring of maximal strength, power, and hypertrophic resistance-training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study monitored strength-training adaptations via isometric parameters throughout 2 × 10 weeks of hypertrophic (HYP I-II) or 10 weeks maximum strength (MS) followed by 10 weeks power (P) training with untrained controls. Trainees performed bilateral isometric leg press tests analyzed for peak force (maximal voluntary contraction (MVC)) and rate of force development (RFD) every 3.5 weeks. These parameters were compared with dynamic performance, voluntary and electrically induced isometric contractions, muscle activity, and cross-sectional area (CSA) in the laboratory before and after 10 and 20 weeks. RFD increased similarly during the first 7 weeks (HYP I, 44% ± 53%; MS, 48% ± 55%, P < 0.05), but RFD continued to increase up to 65% ± 61% from baseline (P < 0.01) only during P. These increases were concomitant with enhanced dynamic performances of 1-repetition maximum (1RM) (HYP I, 8% ± 6%; MS, 11% ± 6%, P < 0.001), and explosive repetitions during P (11% ± 15%, P < 0.05). Time to reach peak RFD differed (P < 0.001) between HYP (mean 42 ± 20 ms) and MS-P (mean 31 ± 12 ms) groups because of training. The changes in MVC correlated with the changes in CSA during weeks 1-20 (HYP I-II, r = 0.664; MS-P, r = 0.595, P ≤ 0.05), as well as changes in 1RM (r = 0.724, P < 0.05) during weeks 11-20 (HYP II). Muscle activity increased during MS and P only. Both MVC and RFD improvements reflected combinations of central and peripheral adaptations. RFD parameters may be effective tools to evaluate adaptations, particularly during maximal strength/power training, while MVC cannot distinguish between strength or muscle mass changes. Monitoring RFD provided important information regarding plateaus in RFD improvement, which were observed in dynamic explosive performances after HYP II compared with P.
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".