Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24699366›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

The single-bout forearm critical force test: a new method to establish forearm aerobic metabolic exercise intensity and capacity.

J Mikhail Kellawan, Michael E Tschakovsky

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Is there a critical rate of torque development?European journal of applied physiology · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Physical performance testing in climbing-A systematic review.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2023
    Review
  7. A critical review of critical power.European journal of applied physiology · 2022
    Review
  8. Handgrip fatiguing exercise can provide objective assessment of cancer-related fatigue: a pilot study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2019
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The effects of exercise-induced muscle damage on critical torque.European journal of applied physiology · 2017
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

J Mikhail KellawanSchool of Kinesiology and Health Studies, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Michael E TschakovskySchool of Kinesiology and Health Studies, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

No non-invasive test exists for forearm exercise that allows identification of power-time relationship parameters (W', critical power) and thereby identification of the heavy-severe exercise intensity boundary and scaling of aerobic metabolic exercise intensity. The aim of this study was to develop a maximal effort handgrip exercise test to estimate forearm critical force (fCF; force analog of power) and establish its repeatability and validity. Ten healthy males (20-43 years) completed two maximal effort rhythmic handgrip exercise tests (repeated maximal voluntary contractions (MVC); 1 s contraction-2 s relaxation for 600 s) on separate days. Exercise intensity was quantified via peak contraction force and contraction impulse. There was no systematic difference between test 1 and 2 for fCF(peak) force (p = 0.11) or fCF(impulse) (p = 0.76). Typical error was small for both fCF(peak force) (15.3 N, 5.5%) and fCF(impulse) (15.7 N ⋅ s, 6.8%), and test re-test correlations were strong (fCF(peak force), r = 0.91, ICC = 0.94, p<0.01; fCF(impulse), r = 0.92, ICC = 0.95, p<0.01). Seven of ten subjects also completed time-to-exhaustion tests (TTE) at target contraction force equal to 10%<fCF(peak force) and 10%>fCF(peak force). TTE predicted by W' showed good agreement with actual TTE during the TTE tests (r = 0.97, ICC = 0.97, P<0.01; typical error 0.98 min, 12%; regression fit slope = 0.99 and y intercept not different from 0, p = 0.31). MVC did not predict fCF(peak force) (p = 0.37), fCF(impulse) (p = 0.49) or W' (p = 0.15). In conclusion, the poor relationship between MVC and fCF or W' illustrates the serious limitation of MVC in identifying metabolism-based exercise intensity zones. The maximal effort handgrip exercise test provides repeatable and valid estimates of fCF and should be used to normalize forearm aerobic metabolic exercise intensity instead of MVC.

Indexed as

AdultBiochemical PhenomenaExerciseExercise TestFatigueForearmHand StrengthHumansMaleOxygen Consumption

Identifiers

PMID24699366
PMCPMC3974771

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.