Analysis of a fatigue protocol for knee extensor and flexor muscle groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complementary to the muscle strength measurement, the isokinetic dynamometry offers the opportunity to investigate another essential variable: the fatigue which can be defined as a deterioration in maximum torque generating capacity. Many articles in the literature refer to isokinetic fatigue protocols, yet we may consider that there is a lack of consensus about testing modalities and methodological aspects. The overall aim of that preliminary study was to investigate concentric fatigue protocols in terms of contraction number, measurement reproducibility and appropriateness of parameters classically analysed. \n \nTwelve male subjects (23 2 years old; 71 3 kg) without history of lower limb injury were included in the study. After standardized warm-up and familiarization with the isokinetic exercise (Biodex 3 dynamometer), each subject performed a unilateral concentric testing on their dominant side knee flexors and extensors. The protocol consisted in 50 maximal contractions at 180°/s angular velocity along a constant 100° range of motion. The fatigue protocol was repeated at 3 different sessions, separated by one week, in the same standardized conditions. \n \nMeasured and calculated parameters were analysed: maximal work (Wmax); total work (Wtot); cumulated work on 10-20-30-40-50 repetitions (W10-20-30-40-50); different fatigue indexes: mean on the 3 last reps/Wmax (W3L/Wmax), mean on the 5 last reps/Wmax (W5L/Wmax), W3L/mean on the 3 first reps (W3L/W3F), W5L / mean on the 5 first reps (W5L/W5F). These fatigue indexes were established from the 50 repetitions protocol but also calculated on the 30 and 40 first repetitions of the whole test. The heart rate (HR) throughout the fatigue protocol was recorded using a Polar cardiofrequencemeter. \n \nA generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was used for the statistical analysis of reproducibility. \n \nThe cumulated work calculated on 20, 30, 40 or 50 repetitions was found to be reproducible for the Q muscle group. The same parameters calculated on the Fl muscle group showed a less satisfactory reproducibility. Among indexes of fatigue, the most reproducible were those using Wmax as denominator (by contrast with W3F or W5F as denominator), in particular the W5L/Wmax index for the Q. From 20 repetitions to the end of exercise, the fatigue indexes calculated on the Fl were significantly (p < 0.05) inferior to the indexes established for the Q, suggesting a more marked effect of fatigue on the Fl decrease of maximal strength production. With respect to the HR expressed in percentage of the theoretical maximal HR, the value averaged 53 % before exercise, 83 % after 20 reps and peaked at 87 % after 50 reps. After 2 minutes of recovery, the HR reached 58 % of the HR max. \n \nThese findings must be taken into account when designing a fatigue isokinetic protocol, in terms of exercise duration and parameters to be analysed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".