Muscular performance and body composition changes following multi-joint versus combined multi- and single-joint exercises in aging adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to compare muscular performance and body composition changes following low-volume resistance-training programs consisting of multi-joint (MJ) exercises (cable chest press and seated row) versus a combination of multi- and single-joint (MJ+SJ) exercises (cable chest press, seated row, biceps curl, and triceps extension). Thirty untrained healthy aging adults were randomly assigned to 3 groups: MJ (n = 11), MJ+SJ (n = 11), and control (n = 8). Twelve-repetition maximums (12-RMs) for the cable chest press and seated row, localized muscular endurance for the elbow flexors handgrip strength, and body composition were assessed before and after the 8-week training program. All comparisons were analyzed via a mixed-model analysis with repeated measures (group × time) and the Bonferroni post hoc test (p < 0.05). The MJ and MJ+SJ groups increased performance in the 12-RM cable chest press (MJ = 61.5% ± 24.6% and MJ+SJ = 71.1% ± 25.6%), 12-RM seated row (MJ = 46.4% ± 26.3% and MJ+SJ = 51.5% ± 21.0%), localized muscular endurance (MJ = 24.7% ± 16.7% and MJ+SJ = 37.0% ± 11.4%), and handgrip strength (MJ = 9.3% ± 10.4% and MJ+SJ = 16.6% ± 25.3%) after the intervention. Body composition (i.e., trunk and upper limb fat and lean mass) did not change for any groups. No significant differences were observed between the MJ versus the MJ+SJ protocols after the intervention for any variables. In conclusion, for aging adults, either MJ or MJ+SJ low-volume resistance training resulted in similar increases in 12-RM, localized muscular endurance, and handgrip strength, without changes in body composition after 8 weeks of training.
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".