↓ Skip to main content

Specific effects of eccentric and concentric training on muscle strength and morphology in humans

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Applied Physiology, November 1998
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
129 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
216 Mendeley
Title
Specific effects of eccentric and concentric training on muscle strength and morphology in humans
Published in
European Journal of Applied Physiology, November 1998
DOI 10.1007/s004210050472
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan Y. Seger, B. Arvidsson, A. Thorstensson, Jan Y Seger

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare pure eccentric and concentric isokinetic training with respect to their possible specificity in the adaptation of strength and morphology of the knee extensor muscles. Ten moderately trained male physical education students were divided into groups undertaking eccentric (ETG) and concentric (CTG) training. They performed 10 weeks of maximal isokinetic (90 degrees x s(-1)) training of the left leg, 4x10 repetitions - three times a week, followed by a second 10-week period of similar training of the right-leg. Mean eccentric and concentric peak torques increased by 18% and 2% for ETG and by 10% and 14% for CTG, respectively. The highest increase in peak torque occurred in the eccentric 90 degrees x s(-1) test for ETG (35%) whereas in CTG strength gains ranged 8%-15% at velocities equal or lower than the training velocity. Significant increases in strength were observed in the untrained contra-lateral leg only at the velocity and mode used in ipsilateral training. Cross-sectional area of the quadriceps muscle increased 3%-4% with training in both groups, reaching statistical significance only in ETG. No major changes in muscle fibre composition or areas were detected in biopsies from the vastus lateralis muscle for either leg or training group. In conclusion, effects of eccentric training on muscle strength appeared to be more mode and speed specific than corresponding concentric training. Only minor adaptations in gross muscle morphology indicated that other factors, such as changes in neural activation patterns, were causing the specific training-induced gains in muscle strength.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 216 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 6 3%
Portugal 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 205 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 44 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 15%
Student > Bachelor 28 13%
Researcher 18 8%
Professor 16 7%
Other 46 21%
Unknown 31 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 89 41%
Medicine and Dentistry 28 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 3%
Psychology 7 3%
Other 29 13%
Unknown 42 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 September 2022.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#3,318
of 4,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,155
of 41,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#8
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 41,240 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.