Effects of isokinetic eccentric versus traditional lower body resistance training on muscle function: examining a multiple-joint short-term training model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early adaptations in eccentric training show several advantages over those in concentric training. The purpose of this study was to quantify the effects of 4 weeks of multiple-joint eccentric versus traditional leg press (TLP) training on muscle strength, rate of torque development (RTD), and jump and sprint performance adaptations. Twenty-six resistance-trained adults performed either an eccentric or a TLP resistance-training program twice per week for 4 weeks. Single-joint isometric maximal and rapid strength (peak torque and RTD, respectively) and isokinetic strength of the knee extensors and flexors, multiple-joint eccentric strength, leg press strength (1-repetition maximum), 40-m sprint, and vertical and long jump were measured before, at the midpoint, and after a 4-week training period. Four weeks of isokinetic multiple-joint eccentric training elicited greater test-specific strength gains (effect size (ES) = 1.06) compared with TLP training (ES = 0.11). The eccentric group also yielded moderate improvements in the middle-late phase RTD (RTD100-200; ES = 0.51 and 0.54 for the knee flexors and extensors, respectively), whereas the TLP group showed small-moderate improvements (ES = 0.37). The majority of the single-joint strength variables showed negligible improvements. Performance tests showed no (broad jump) to small (vertical jump; sprint for the leg press) improvements. Multiple-joint eccentric training induced significant improvements in lower body strength in a short amount of time in a recreationally trained population. These accelerated adaptations along with the lower energy requirements of eccentric exercise, may be useful for clinicians or practitioners when prescribing training programs for those who are injured, sedentary, or elderly as a means to elicit time- and metabolically efficient muscle function improvements.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".