The Effect of Two Movement Strategies on Shoulder Resultant Joint Moment During Elastic Resistance Exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the common use of elastic resistance in training, only the static loading characteristics have been studied, whereas the dynamic components remain undetermined. The purpose was to determine the effect of two movement strategies on the shoulder resultant joint moment (RJM) during internal/external rotation exercise with elastic load. Ten healthy subjects performed sweep and step movement strategies over a constant range of motion and cadence (1:1). Shoulder RJM was determined using a Newtonian model with elastic force measured by force transducer, joint angle by electrogoniometer, and limb acceleration by accelerometer. Relative to the sweep strategy, the step strategy revealed a 49% increase in angle-specific RJM during the initial phase, RJM was reduced to 67-69% during midrange, and increased to over 110% at the end of the repetition. These RJM differences were wholly attributable to strategy-dependent changes in limb acceleration. Shoulder RJM in the sweep strategy was almost entirely explained by moment of elastic force. Movement strategy can substantially alter shoulder loading despite constant range of motion and cadence, impacting the magnitude and nature of the stimulus for neuromuscular adaptation. These acceleration-dependent changes in shoulder RJM may be important to consider for exercise efficacy and safety.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".