Eccentric exercise-induced muscle weakness abolishes sex differences in fatigability during sustained submaximal isometric contractions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Females are typically less fatigable than males during sustained isometric contractions at lower isometric contraction intensities. This sex difference in fatigability becomes more variable during higher intensity isometric and dynamic contractions. While less fatiguing than isometric or concentric contractions, eccentric contractions induce greater and longer lasting impairments in force production. However, it is not clear how muscle weakness influences fatigability in males and females during sustained isometric contractions. METHODS: We investigated the effects of eccentric exercise-induced muscle weakness on time to task failure (TTF) during a sustained submaximal isometric contraction in young (18-30 years) healthy males (n = 9) and females (n = 10). Participants performed a sustained isometric contraction of the dorsiflexors at 35° plantar flexion by matching a 30% maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) torque target until task failure (i.e., falling below 5% of their target torque for ≥2 s). The same sustained isometric contraction was repeated 30 min after 150 maximal eccentric contractions. Agonist and antagonist activation were assessed using surface electromyography over the tibialis anterior and soleus muscles, respectively. RESULTS: Males were ∼41% stronger than females. Following eccentric exercise both males and females experienced an ∼20% decline in maximal voluntary contraction torque. TTF was ∼34% longer in females than males prior to eccentric exercise-induced muscle weakness. However, following eccentric exercise-induced muscle weakness, this sex-related difference was abolished, with both groups having an ∼45% shorter TTF. Notably, there was ∼100% greater antagonist activation in the female group during the sustained isometric contraction following exercise-induced weakness as compared to the males. CONCLUSION: This increase in antagonist activation disadvantaged females by decreasing their TTF, resulting in a blunting of their typical fatigability advantage over males.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".