| Title |
Muscle fatigue in response to low-load blood flow-restricted elbow-flexion exercise: are there any sex differences?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Applied Physiology, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00421-018-3940-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Goncalo V. Mendonca, Afonso Borges, Carolina Teodósio, Pedro Matos, Joana Correia, Carolina Vila-Chã, Pedro Mil-Homens, Pedro Pezarat-Correia |
| Abstract |
This study aimed to determine whether men and women display a different magnitude of muscle fatigue in response to high-load (HL) and low-load blood flow-restricted (LLBFR) elbow-flexion exercise. We also explored to which extent both exercise protocols induce similar levels of muscle fatigue (i.e., torque decrement). Sixty-two young participants (31 men and 31 women) performed dynamic elbow flexions at 20 and 75% of one-repetition maximum for LLBFR and HL exercise, respectively. Maximum voluntary isometric contractions were performed before and after exercise to quantify muscle fatigue. Men and women exhibited similar magnitude of relative torque decrement after both exercise protocols (p > 0.05). HL was more fatiguing (∆ torque output: 11.9 and 23 N.m in women and men, respectively) than LLBFR resistance exercise (∆ torque output: 8.3 and 15.4 N.m in women and men, respectively) in both sexes, but this was largely attenuated after controlling for the differences in volume load between protocols (p > 0.05). These data show that torque decrement in response to LLBFR and HL dynamic elbow-flexion exercise does not follow a sexually dimorphic pattern. Our data also indicate that, if performed in a multiple-set fashion and prescribed for a given volume load, elbow-flexion LLBFR exercise induces similar levels of fatigue as HL acute training. Importantly, this occurs similarly in both sexes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 33% |
| Brazil | 1 | 11% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 11% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 11% |
| United States | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 56% |
| Scientists | 4 | 44% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 99 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 7% |
| Researcher | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 15% |
| Unknown | 33 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 29 | 29% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 10% |
| Unknown | 37 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 18 July 2018.
All research outputs
#6,932,988
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#1,773
of 4,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,964
of 340,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#29
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
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 14.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 340,113 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 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 50% of its contemporaries.