Effects of concentric and eccentric contractions on strength, retention and bilateral transfer / by Calvin Edward McDonald. --
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of two \ndifferent strength training methods, (concentric and eccentric) on \nstrength, retention and bilateral transfer. Subjects were 22 male \nvolunteers, aged 16 to 17. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of \ntwo treatment groups and to exercise the left or right elbow flexor - \nextensors. Following a preliminary training and safety period the \nsubjects were pre-tested on the four dependent variables static flexion, \nstatic extension, dynamic flexion and dynamic extension at multiple \nangles of 90, 105, 120, and 135 degrees. The groups alternated each \nweek training Monday, Wednesday and Friday while the other group trained \nTuesday and Thursday. Both groups performed 3x6 RM at a velocity of \n7.2 revolutions per minute. The instrumentation designed by the \ninvestigator was used for training and testing. The non-trained arm remained in a standardized position during training and testing. Subjects \nwere assessed for strength at the beginning of a 6 week training \nprogram, at the conclusion of training and after a 4 week retention period. Data were analyzed with a four-way split plot ANOVA, t-tests \nand percentage changes. The statistical index was represented by the \nhigher score of two trials. An alpha level of .05 was accepted for all \nstatistical procedures. Results showed: (a) strength training methods \n(concentric and eccentric) improved static and dynamic strength, (b) a \nsignificant difference was demonstrated amon^ test angles, (c) specificity \nbetween static and dynamic testing procedures was present on a percentage \nbasis, (d) there was a wide range of response among subjects to the \nexercise regimen, (e) eccentric tension was greater than concentric or \nisometric tension, (f) neither strength training method was superior \nto the Other, (g) following 4 weeks of detraining neither training procedure \nresulted in a significant loss of strength, (h) neither training \nprocedure resulted in a significant transfer of strength and (i) the \ntrained arm was superior to the non-trained arm on the 4 test items.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".