↓ Skip to main content

Muscle Strength and Its Development

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

patent
36 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
282 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
236 Mendeley
Title
Muscle Strength and Its Development
Published in
Sports Medicine, November 2012
DOI 10.2165/00007256-198806030-00003
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roger M. Enoka

Abstract

Skeletal muscle undergoes substantial adaptation when it is subjected to a strength training regimen. At one extreme, these effects are manifested as profound morphological changes, such as those exemplified by bodybuilders. However, it is possible to increase strength without any change in muscle size. This dissociation underscores the notion that strength is not solely a property of muscle but rather it is a property of the motor system. The nervous system seems to be of paramount importance for the expression and development of strength. Indeed, it is probable that increases in strength can be achieved without morphological changes in muscle but not without neural adaptations. This review focuses on the role of the nervous system in the development of strength. In the strength literature, 3 topics exemplify the importance of the nervous system in strength development. These 3 topics are considered in detail in the review: electromyostimulation, cross-training effects, and EMG-force relationships. Evidence is presented from several different paradigms emphasising the significant contribution of neural mechanisms to the gains in strength with short term training. Although little is known about the specific neural mechanisms associated with strength training adaptations, the literature emphasises that the measure of human performance known as strength can be influenced by a variety of neurophysiological processes.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 236 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 233 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 38 16%
Student > Master 29 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 11%
Professor 17 7%
Researcher 16 7%
Other 50 21%
Unknown 61 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 72 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 6%
Neuroscience 14 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 5%
Other 28 12%
Unknown 73 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 13 February 2024.
All research outputs
#8,262,107
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#2,247
of 2,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,757
of 286,193 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#326
of 525 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 56.8. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 286,193 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 525 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.