Bibliographic record
Abstract
Age-related reductions in muscle strength and muscle power can have significant adverse effects on functional performance in older adults. Exercise training has been shown to be a potent stimulus for improvements in strength and power. However, investigation into how to best optimize training-related adaptations, as well as the accessibility of training methods, is needed. Traditional (TR) methods using gravity-dependent free-weights or weight machines can improve and maintain strength and power but are limited in their ability to provide constant muscle tension and high levels of muscle activation throughout the lowering (eccentric) phase of lifting. Eccentric overload (EO) training may overcome these limitations and has been shown to result in potent adaptations in both young and older adults. Methods of producing EO are significantly limited from a practical perspective. The addition of whole-body flywheel training equipment provides a practical method of producing EO and may be appropriate for older adults wanting to optimize training outcomes. Our review provides limited evidence of the use of eccentric overload flywheel training as a novel training method in seniors. Through the review of literature, EO training overcame some of the limitations set forth by traditional resistance training and demonstrated to have key benefits when combating age-related changes affecting muscle strength and muscle power. It can be concluded that EO training is an important addition to the training arsenal for older adults. Flywheel training provides a practical method of achieving EO, increasing strength and power, combating age-related adaptations, and overall improving quality of life in older adults.
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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".