Modifiability of the history dependence of force through chronic eccentric and concentric biased resistance training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increase and decrease in steady-state isometric force following active muscle lengthening and shortening are referred to as residual force enhancement (RFE) and force depression (FD), respectively. The RFE and FD states are associated with decreased (activation reduction; AR) and increased (activation increase; AI) neuromuscular activity, respectively. Although the mechanisms have been discussed over the last 60 years, no studies have systematically investigated the modifiability of RFE and FD with training. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether RFE and FD could be modulated through eccentric and concentric biased resistance training. Fifteen healthy young adult men (age: 24 ± 2 yr, weight: 77 ± 8 kg, height: 178 ± 5 cm) underwent 4 wk of isokinetic dorsiflexion training, in which one leg was trained eccentrically (-25°/s) and the other concentrically (+25°/s) over a 50° ankle excursion. Maximal and submaximal (40% maximum voluntary contraction) steady-state isometric torque and EMG values following active lengthening and shortening were compared to purely isometric values at the same joint angles and torque levels. Residual torque enhancement (rTE) decreased by ~36% after eccentric training ( P < 0.05) and increased by ~89% after concentric training ( P < 0.05), whereas residual torque depression (rTD), AR, AI, and optimal angles for torque production were not significantly altered by resistance training ( P ≥ 0.05). It appears that rTE, but not rTD, for the human ankle dorsiflexors is differentially modifiable through contraction type-dependent resistance training. NEW & NOTEWORTHY The history dependence of force production is a property of muscle unexplained by current cross bridge and sliding filament theories. Whether a muscle is actively lengthened (residual force enhancement; RFE) or shortened (force depression) to a given length, the isometric force should be equal to a purely isometric contraction-but it is not! In this study we show that eccentric training decreased RFE, whereas concentric training increased RFE and converted all nonresponders (i.e., not exhibiting RFE) into responders.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".