Isotonic resistance exercise outperforms eccentric quasi-isometric resistance exercise for increasing elbow flexor muscle thickness and estimated one-repetition maximum in untrained individuals: exploring the influence of sex and volume
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a novel, low-velocity resistance exercise method, eccentric quasi-isometric resistance exercise (EQI-RE) results in greater time under tension than traditional isotonic resistance exercise (TRD-RE) and is surmised to increase muscle mass and strength. However, females may be more fatigue-resistant than males when performing acute EQI-RE, which could lead to long-term differences in time under tension and resistance exercise volume. At present, studies have yet to compare muscle hypertrophy or strength improvements following TRD-RE and EQI-RE training, and whether sex differences exist in these outcomes. Twenty-two ( n = 13 females) untrained individuals completed ∼8 weeks of effort matched unilateral TRD-RE and EQI-RE of the elbow flexors. Muscle thickness and estimated one-repetition maximum (E-1RM) were evaluated before and after training. TRD-RE produced significantly larger relative increases in muscle thickness (6.7% ± 3.9% vs. 4.0% ± 3.3%, p = 0.004) and E-1RM (19.6 ± 8.5% vs. 12.8 ± 6.2%, p = 0.001) than EQI-RE. Although females accrued greater resistance exercise volume than males across the TRD-RE and EQI-RE training, there were no relative sex differences in muscle thickness or E-1RM improvements ( p > 0.25). Sex differences in fatiguability may therefore manifest in differences in resistance exercise volume between males and females after 8 weeks of TRD-RE and EQI-RE of the elbow flexors, but this does not lead to relative differences in muscle thickness or E-1RM improvements. Although EQI-RE did produce significant increases, TRD-RE of the elbow flexors appears more effective at increasing muscle thickness and E-1RM.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".