↓ Skip to main content

Hamstring Architectural and Functional Adaptations Following Long vs. Short Muscle Length Eccentric Training

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
75 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
250 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
Hamstring Architectural and Functional Adaptations Following Long vs. Short Muscle Length Eccentric Training
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, August 2016
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2016.00340
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kenny Guex, Francis Degache, Cynthia Morisod, Matthieu Sailly, Gregoire P. Millet

Abstract

Most common preventive eccentric-based exercises, such as Nordic hamstring do not include any hip flexion. So, the elongation stress reached is lower than during the late swing phase of sprinting. The aim of this study was to assess the evolution of hamstring architectural (fascicle length and pennation angle) and functional (concentric and eccentric optimum angles and concentric and eccentric peak torques) parameters following a 3-week eccentric resistance program performed at long (LML) vs. short muscle length (SML). Both groups performed eight sessions of 3-5 × 8 slow maximal eccentric knee extensions on an isokinetic dynamometer: the SML group at 0° and the LML group at 80° of hip flexion. Architectural parameters were measured using ultrasound imaging and functional parameters using the isokinetic dynamometer. The fascicle length increased by 4.9% (p < 0.01, medium effect size) in the SML and by 9.3% (p < 0.001, large effect size) in the LML group. The pennation angle did not change (p = 0.83) in the SML and tended to decrease by 0.7° (p = 0.09, small effect size) in the LML group. The concentric optimum angle tended to decrease by 8.8° (p = 0.09, medium effect size) in the SML and by 17.3° (p < 0.01, large effect size) in the LML group. The eccentric optimum angle did not change (p = 0.19, small effect size) in the SML and tended to decrease by 10.7° (p = 0.06, medium effect size) in the LML group. The concentric peak torque did not change in the SML (p = 0.37) and the LML (p = 0.23) groups, whereas eccentric peak torque increased by 12.9% (p < 0.01, small effect size) and 17.9% (p < 0.001, small effect size) in the SML and the LML group, respectively. No group-by-time interaction was found for any parameters. A correlation was found between the training-induced change in fascicle length and the change in concentric optimum angle (r = -0.57, p < 0.01). These results suggest that performing eccentric exercises lead to several architectural and functional adaptations. However, further investigations are required to confirm the hypothesis that performing eccentric exercises at LML may lead to greater adaptations than a similar training performed at SML.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 75 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 250 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Qatar 1 <1%
Unknown 245 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 48 19%
Student > Bachelor 36 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 11%
Researcher 15 6%
Other 13 5%
Other 46 18%
Unknown 64 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 92 37%
Medicine and Dentistry 39 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 11%
Social Sciences 3 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 <1%
Other 8 3%
Unknown 79 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. 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 05 February 2021.
All research outputs
#799,842
of 24,719,968 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#443
of 15,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,166
of 375,375 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#6
of 165 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,719,968 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 375,375 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 165 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 96% of its contemporaries.