Eccentric Quasi-Isometric vs. Isotonic Resistance Exercise of the Elbow Flexors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional isotonic resistance exercise (TRD-RE) improves muscle mass, strength, and overall health.However, TRD-RE may be impractical or unfeasible in injury or sport specific situations.Compared to TRD-RE, eccentric quasi-isometric resistance exercise (EQI-RE) is a low-velocity resistance exercise modality suggested to acutely produce similar and/or greater time under tension, motor unit recruitment, and antagonist co-activation.With limited investigations or comparisons to other forms of resistance exercise, however, evidence is lacking.As differences between males and females exist in time under tension and motor unit behaviour in other resistance exercise contexts, the current study explored sex-differences in time under tension and surface electromyography (sEMG) across 2 sets of TRD-RE and EQI-RE.Twenty-seven (n = 13 females) participants performed unilateral TRD-RE and EQI-RE of the elbow flexors while sEMG was collected from the biceps and triceps brachii.Several main and interaction effects of resistance exercise type, set, and sex were present for time under tension, linear envelope peak (LEpeak), absolute (iEMGabs) and relative (iEMG%) integrated sEMG, with set 1 typically having higher sEMG values than set 2, and EQI-RE having greater time under tension than TRD-RE.Notably, females produced significantly more time under tension, iEMGabs, iEMG%, and coactivation than males during EQI-RE, while males experienced a more significant set-to-set reduction in time under tension and LEpeak during TRD-RE.Overall, TRD-RE may result in quicker voluntary excitation and subsequent fatigue of motor units compared to EQI-RE, while females may accrue more resistance exercise volume than males when performing EQI-RE.Theoretically, these effects could lead to long-term sex-differences in strength and hypertrophy outcomes between males and females, TRD-RE and EQI-RE.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".