Triceps Surae Muscle Architecture Adaptations to Eccentric Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Eccentric exercises have been used in physical training, injury prevention, and rehabilitation programs. The systematic use of eccentric training promotes specific morphological adaptations on skeletal muscles. However, synergistic muscles, such as the triceps surae components, might display different structural adaptations due to differences in architecture, function, and load sharing. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the effects of an eccentric training program on the triceps surae (GM, gastrocnemius medialis; GL, gastrocnemius lateralis; and SO, soleus) muscle architecture. METHODS: Twenty healthy male subjects (26 ± 4 years) underwent a 4-week control period followed by a 12-week eccentric training program. Muscle architecture [fascicle length (FL), pennation angle (PA), and muscle thickness (MT)] of GM, GL, and SO was evaluated every 4 weeks by ultrasonography. RESULTS: Fascicle lengths (GM: 13.2%; GL: 8.8%; SO: 21%) and ML increased (GM: 14.9%; GL: 15.3%; SO: 19.1%) from pre- to post-training, whereas PAs remained similar. GM and SO FL and MT increased up to the 8th training week, whereas GL, FL increased up to the 4th week. SO displayed the highest, and GL the smallest gains in FL post-training. CONCLUSION: All three synergistic plantar flexor muscles increased FL and MT with eccentric training. MT increased similarly among the synergistic muscles, while the muscle with the shortest FL at baseline (SO) showed the greatest increase in FL.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".