Unilateral Quadriceps Fatigue Induces Greater Impairments of Ipsilateral versus Contralateral Elbow Flexors and Plantar Flexors Performance in Physically Active Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-local muscle fatigue (NLMF) studies have examined crossover impairments of maximal voluntary force output in non-exercised, contralateral muscles as well as comparing upper and lower limb muscles. Since prior studies primarily investigated contralateral muscles, the purpose of this study was to compare NLMF effects on elbow flexors (EF) and plantar flexors (PF) force and activation (electromyography: EMG). Secondly, possible differences when testing ipsilateral or contralateral muscles with a single or repeated isometric maximum voluntary contractions (MVC) were also investigated. Twelve participants (six males: (27.3 ± 2.5 years, 186.0 ± 2.2 cm, 91.0 ± 4.1 kg; six females: 23.0 ± 1.6 years, 168.2 ± 6.7 cm, 60.0 ± 4.3 kg) attended six randomized sessions where ipsilateral or contralateral PF or EF MVC force and EMG activity (root mean square) were tested following a dominant knee extensors (KE) fatigue intervention (2×100s MVC) or equivalent rest (control). Testing involving a single MVC (5s) was completed by the ipsilateral or contralateral PF or EF prior to and immediately post-interventions. One minute after the post-intervention single MVC, a 12×5s MVCs fatigue test was completed. Two-way repeated measures ANOVAs revealed that ipsilateral EF post-fatigue force was lower (-6.6%, p = 0.04, d = 0.18) than pre-fatigue with no significant changes in the contralateral or control conditions. EF demonstrated greater fatigue indexes for the ipsilateral (9.5%, p = 0.04, d = 0.75) and contralateral (20.3%, p < 0.01, d = 1.50) EF over the PF, respectively. There were no significant differences in PF force, EMG or EF EMG post-test or during the MVCs fatigue test. The results suggest that NLMF effects are side and muscle specific where prior KE fatigue could hinder subsequent ipsilateral upper body performance and thus is an important consideration for rehabilitation, recreation and athletic programs.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".