↓ Skip to main content

Effect of one-legged exercise on the strength, power and endurance of the contralateral leg

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Applied Physiology, March 1992
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
Title
Effect of one-legged exercise on the strength, power and endurance of the contralateral leg
Published in
European Journal of Applied Physiology, March 1992
DOI 10.1007/bf00717948
Pubmed ID
Authors

P. Kannus, D. Alosa, L. Cook, R. J. Johnson, P. Renström, M. Pope, B. Beynnon, K. Yasuda, C. Nichols, M. Kaplan

Abstract

The purpose of this investigation was to study the effect of one-legged exercise on the strength, power and endurance of the contralateral leg. The performance of the knee extensor and flexor muscle of 20 healthy young adults (10 men and 10 women) was first tested by Cybex II+ and 340 dynamometers. Then 10 subjects were chosen at random to train using one leg three times a week for 7 weeks whilst the other 10 served as controls. During the 8th week, the tests were repeated. Both quadriceps and hamstring muscles of the trained subjects showed a cross-transfer effect from the trained limb to the untrained side. This concerned the strength and power, as well as endurance characteristics of these muscles. The average change in peak torque of the quadriceps muscle was +19% (P less than 0.001) in the trained limb, +11% (P less than 0.01) in the untrained limb and 0% in the control limbs. In hamstring muscles the changes were +14% (P less than 0.01), +5% and -1%, respectively. Concerning muscle endurance (work performed during the last 5 contractions in the 25-repetition test) the corresponding changes were +15% (P less than 0.01), +7% (P less than 0.01), and -1% in quadriceps muscle, and +17% (P less than 0.05), +7%, and -3% in hamstring muscles. The average strength benefit in the untrained limb was +36% (hamstring muscles) and +58% (quadriceps muscle) of that achieved in the trained limb. Untrained hamstring muscle showed better benefits in the endurance parameters than in strength or power parameters, while in the quadriceps muscle this effect was reversed. A positive relationship was observed between the changes (greater improvement in the trained limb resulted in greater improvement in the untrained limb) (hamstring muscles: r = 0.83, P less than 0.001, quadriceps muscle: r = 0.53, P less than 0.001). In endurance parameters, this relationship was almost linear while in the strength and power parameters the results were more in favour of a curvilinear relationship with limited benefit.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Lebanon 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 90 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 18%
Student > Master 14 15%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 6%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 23 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 24 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 29 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 07 March 2016.
All research outputs
#4,290,559
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#1,202
of 4,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,890
of 17,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#4
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 17,677 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.