Cross‐education after high‐frequency versus low‐frequency volume‐matched handgrip training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cross-education training programs cause interlimb asymmetry of strength and hypertrophy. We examined the cross-education effects from a high-frequency (HF) versus a low-frequency (LF) volume-matched handgrip training program on interlimb asymmetry. METHODS: Right-handed participants completed either HF (n = 10; 2 × 6 repetitions 10 times per week) or LF (n = 9; 5 × 8 repetitions 3 times per week) training. Testing occurred twice before and once after 4 weeks of right-handed isometric handgrip training totaling 120 weekly repetitions. Measures were maximal isometric handgrip and wrist flexion torque, muscle thickness, and muscle activation (electromyography; EMG). RESULTS: Grip strength was greater in both limbs posttraining, pooled across groups (P < 0.001). Trained limb muscle thickness increased in both groups (P < 0.05; untrained, P = 0.897). EMG and wrist flexion torque did not change (all P > 0.103). DISCUSSION: Both LF and HF induced cross-education of grip strength to the untrained limb, but HF did not reduce asymmetry. These findings have implications for injury rehabilitation. Muscle Nerve 56: 689-695, 2017.
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) | 0.003 | 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".