↓ Skip to main content

Contralateral effects of unilateral strength training: evidence and possible mechanisms

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Applied Physiology, November 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
39 X users
facebook
9 Facebook pages
video
4 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
372 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
530 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Contralateral effects of unilateral strength training: evidence and possible mechanisms
Published in
Journal of Applied Physiology, November 2006
DOI 10.1152/japplphysiol.00531.2006
Pubmed ID
Authors

Timothy J. Carroll, Robert D. Herbert, Joanne Munn, Michael Lee, Simon C. Gandevia

Abstract

If exercises are performed to increase muscle strength on one side of the body, voluntary strength can increase on the contralateral side. This effect, termed the contralateral strength training effect, is usually measured in homologous muscles. Although known for over a century, most studies have not been designed well enough to show a definitive transfer of strength that could not be explained by factors such as familiarity with the testing. However, an updated meta-analysis of 16 properly controlled studies (range 15-48 training sessions) shows that the size of the contralateral strength training effect is approximately 8% of initial strength or about half the increase in strength of the trained side. This estimate is similar to results of a large, randomized controlled study of training for the elbow flexors (contralateral effect of 7% initial strength or one-quarter of the effect on the trained side). This is likely to reflect increased motoneuron output rather than muscular adaptations, although most methods are insufficiently sensitive to detect small muscle contributions. Two classes of central mechanism are identified. One involves a "spillover" to the control system for the contralateral limb, and the other involves adaptations in the control system for the trained limb that can be accessed by the untrained limb. Cortical, subcortical and spinal levels are all likely to be involved in the "transfer," and none can be excluded with current data. Although the size of the effect is small and may not be clinically significant, study of the phenomenon provides insight into neural mechanisms associated with exercise and training.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 530 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 <1%
Germany 3 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
Brazil 3 <1%
Norway 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 509 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 85 16%
Student > Bachelor 79 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 63 12%
Researcher 52 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 36 7%
Other 114 22%
Unknown 101 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 170 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 75 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 39 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 36 7%
Neuroscience 21 4%
Other 61 12%
Unknown 128 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 February 2024.
All research outputs
#978,056
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Applied Physiology
#532
of 9,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,593
of 90,069 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Applied Physiology
#4
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,077 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 90,069 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.