Acute effects of resistance training at different range of motions on plantar flexion mechanical properties and force
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects obtained from resistance training depend on the exercise range of motion (ROM) performed. We aimed to examine the acute effects of different exercise ROM resistance training on the plantar flexor muscles. Eighteen healthy untrained male adults participated in three conditions: calf raises in 1) partial condition [final (short muscle length) partial ROM], 2) full condition (full ROM), and 3) control condition. The ankle dorsiflexion (DF) ROM, passive torque at DF ROM, passive stiffness of muscle-tendon unit, and maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVC-ISO) torque were measured before and immediately after the interventions. There were significant increases in DF ROM, passive torque at DF ROM, and a decrease in MVC-ISO, but no significant interaction in passive stiffness. Post hoc test, DF ROM demonstrated moderate magnitude increases in the full condition compared to the partial (p = 0.023, d = 0.74) and control (p = 0.003, d = 0.71) conditions. Passive torque at DF ROM also showed moderate magnitude increases in the full condition compared to the control condition (p = 0.016, d = 0.69). MVC-ISO had a moderate magnitude decrease in the full condition compared to the control condition (p = 0.018, d=−0.53). Resistance training in the full ROM acutely increases joint ROM to a greater extent than final partial ROM, most likely due to stretch tolerance.
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) | 0.002 | 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".