Comparison of Cross-Education and Global Training Effects in Adults and Youth After Unilateral Strength Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Chaouachi, A, Ben Othman, A, Chaouachi, M, Hechmi, A, Farthing, JP, Granacher, U, and Behm, DG. Comparison of cross-education and global training effects in adults and youth after unilateral strength training. J Strength Cond Res 36(8): 2121-2131, 2022-Youth strength training research examining contralateral, homologous (cross-education), and heterologous (global training) effects after unilateral training have provided mixed results and the relationship to adults has not been compared. The objective was to compare adult and youth cross-education and global training effects on dominant and nondominant limb testing. Initially, 15 men and 15 prepubertal boys volunteered for each unilateral chest press (CP), handgrip training, and control groups ( n = 89). Individuals trained their dominant limb 3 times per week for 8 weeks and had their dominant and nondominant limbs tested for CP and leg press 1 repetition maximum (1RM), handgrip, knee extension and flexion, and elbow extension and flexion maximum voluntary isometric contractions (MVICs). Adult CP training gains were significantly greater than youth with lower-body testing ( p = 0.002-0.06), whereas youth CP training gains exceeded adults with upper-body tests ( p = 0.03-0.07). Training specificity was evident with greater CP 1RM increases with CP vs. handgrip training for both youth ( p < 0.0001) and adults ( p < 0.0001). Handgrip training elicited greater gains in handgrip MVICs compared with other strength tests ( p < 0.0001). In conclusion, only contralateral CP 1RM showed a training advantage for unilateral CP over unilateral handgrip training. Adults showed greater gains with lower-body testing, whereas youth showed greater gains with upper-body testing.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".