Relative Cross-Education Training Effects of Male Youth Exceed Male Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Ben Othman, A, Anvar, SH, Aragão-Santos, JC, Behm, DG, and Chaouachi, A. Relative cross-education training effects of male youth exceed male adults. J Strength Cond Res 38(5): 881-890, 2024-Cross-education has been studied extensively with adults, examining the training effects on contralateral homologous muscles. There is less information on the cross-education effects on contralateral heterologous muscles and scant information comparing these responses between adults and youth. The objective was to compare cross-education training effects in male youth and adults to contralateral homologous and heterologous muscles. Forty-two male children (10-13-years) and 42 adults (18-21-years) were tested before and following an 8-week unilateral, dominant or nondominant arm, chest press (CP) training program or control group (14 subjects each). Unilateral testing assessed dominant and nondominant limb strength with leg press and CP 1 repetition maximum (1RM), knee extensors, elbow extensors (EE), elbow flexors, and handgrip maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) strength and shot put distance and countermovement jump height. Upper-body tests demonstrated large magnitude increases, with children overall exceeding adults ( p = 0.05- p < 0.0001, η2 : 0.51, 10.4 ± 11.1%). The dominant trained limb showed significantly higher training adaptations than the nondominant limb for the adults with CP 1RM ( p = 0.03, η2 : 0.26, 6.7 ± 11.5%) and EE ( p = 0.008, η2 : 0.27, 8.8 ± 10.3%) MVIC force. Unilateral CP training induced significantly greater training adaptations with the ipsilateral vs. contralateral limb ( p = 0.008, η2 : 0.93, 27.8 ± 12.7%). In conclusion, children demonstrated greater training adaptations than adults, upper-body strength increased with no significant lower-body improvements, and ipsilateral training effects were greater than contralateral training in 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 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) | 0.005 | 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".