Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28725197›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in physiology2017

Skeletal Muscle Remodeling in Response to Eccentric vs. Concentric Loading: Morphological, Molecular, and Metabolic Adaptations.

Martino V Franchi, Neil D Reeves, Marco V Narici

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in physiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 184 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
184citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
13.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

184 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 383 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Chronic Adaptations to Eccentric Cycling Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Maximizing Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review of Advanced Resistance Training Techniques and Methods.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

124 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Martino V FranchiMRC-ARUK Centre for Musculoskeletal Ageing Research, School of Medicine, University of NottinghamDerby, United Kingdom.
Neil D ReevesFaculty of Science and Engineering, School of Healthcare Science, Manchester Metropolitan UniversityManchester, United Kingdom.
Marco V NariciMRC-ARUK Centre for Musculoskeletal Ageing Research, School of Medicine, University of NottinghamDerby, United Kingdom.
University of Nottingham · GBManchester Metropolitan University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Skeletal muscle contracts either by shortening or lengthening (concentrically or eccentrically, respectively); however, the two contractions substantially differ from one another in terms of mechanisms of force generation, maximum force production and energy cost. It is generally known that eccentric actions generate greater force than isometric and concentric contractions and at a lower metabolic cost. Hence, by virtue of the greater mechanical loading involved in active lengthening, eccentric resistance training (ECC RT) is assumed to produce greater hypertrophy than concentric resistance training (CON RT). Nonetheless, prevalence of either ECC RT or CON RT in inducing gains in muscle mass is still an open issue, with some studies reporting greater hypertrophy with eccentric, some with concentric and some with similar hypertrophy within both training modes. Recent observations suggest that such hypertrophic responses to lengthening vs. shortening contractions are achieved by different adaptations in muscle architecture. Whilst the changes in muscle protein synthesis in response to acute and chronic concentric and eccentric exercise bouts seem very similar, the molecular mechanisms regulating the myogenic adaptations to the two distinct loading stimuli are still incompletely understood. Thus, the present review aims to, (a) critically discuss the literature on the contribution of eccentric vs. concentric loading to muscular hypertrophy and structural remodeling, and, (b) clarify the molecular mechanisms that may regulate such adaptations. We conclude that, when matched for either maximum load or work, similar increase in muscle size is found between ECC and CON RT. However, such hypertrophic changes appear to be achieved through distinct structural adaptations, which may be regulated by different myogenic and molecular responses observed between lengthening and shortening contractions.

Indexed as

concentric exerciseeccentric contractioneccentric exercisemechanotransductionmuscle architecturemuscle hypertrophymuscle remodelingmuscle signaling

Identifiers

PMID28725197
PMCPMC5495834
OpenAlexW2625024547

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.