↓ Skip to main content

Effects of follicular versus luteal phase-based strength training in young women

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 1,776)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
twitter
45 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages
reddit
2 Redditors
video
6 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
208 Mendeley
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
Effects of follicular versus luteal phase-based strength training in young women
Published in
SpringerPlus, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/2193-1801-3-668
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eunsook Sung, Ahreum Han, Timo Hinrichs, Matthias Vorgerd, Carmen Manchado, Petra Platen

Abstract

Hormonal variations during the menstrual cycle (MC) may influence trainability of strength. We investigated the effects of a follicular phase-based strength training (FT) on muscle strength, muscle volume and microscopic parameters, comparing it to a luteal phase-based training (LT). Eumenorrheic women without oral contraception (OC) (N = 20, age: 25.9 ± 4.5 yr, height: 164.2 ± 5.5 cm, weight: 60.6 ± 7.8 kg) completed strength training on a leg press for three MC, and 9 of them participated in muscle biopsies. One leg had eight training sessions in the follicular phases (FP) and only two sessions in the luteal phases (LP) for follicular phase-based training (FT), while the other leg had eight training sessions in LP and only two sessions in FP for luteal phase-based training (LT). Estradiol (E2), progesterone (P4), total testosterone (T), free testosterone (free T) and DHEA-s were analysed once during FP (around day 11) and once during LP (around day 25). Maximum isometric force (Fmax), muscle diameter (Mdm), muscle fibre composition (No), fibre diameter (Fdm) and cell nuclei-to-fibre ratio (N/F) were analysed before and after the training intervention. T and free T were higher in FP compared to LP prior to the training intervention (P < 0.05). The increase in Fmax after FT was higher compared to LT (P <0.05). FT also showed a higher increase in Mdm than LT (P < 0.05). Moreover, we found significant increases in Fdm of fibre type ΙΙ and in N/F only after FT; however, there was no significant difference from LT. With regard to change in fibre composition, no differences were observed between FT and LT. FT showed a higher gain in muscle strength and muscle diameter than LT. As a result, we recommend that eumenorrheic females without OC should base the periodization of their strength training on their individual MC.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 208 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 203 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 49 24%
Student > Bachelor 42 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 14%
Student > Postgraduate 16 8%
Other 10 5%
Other 40 19%
Unknown 21 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 95 46%
Medicine and Dentistry 24 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 3%
Other 21 10%
Unknown 27 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 95. 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 31 January 2020.
All research outputs
#203,034
of 14,775,904 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#8
of 1,776 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,023
of 301,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#2
of 207 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,775,904 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,776 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 301,242 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 207 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 99% of its contemporaries.