ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2024
Strength and power adaptations of the upper body following 20 training sessions on an eccentric arm-crank ergometer.
Article in European journal of applied physiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Co-development and implementation of a group-based arm-crank exercise programme in the community for individuals with neurological impairments.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Reply to Hertig-Godeschalk et al. Comment on "Bai et al. Effect of Eccentric Training with Different Durations, Intensities, and Contraction Velocities on Upper Limb Muscle Strength: A Meta-Analysis.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comment on Bai et al. Effect of Eccentric Training with Different Durations, Intensities, and Contraction Velocities on Upper Limb Muscle Strength: A Meta-Analysis.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Effect of Eccentric Training with Different Durations, Intensities, and Contraction Velocities on Upper Limb Muscle Strength: A Meta-Analysis.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEccentric strength training is an innovative and promising approach to improve exercise performance. However, most eccentric training studies in the past were performed with a focus on the lower extremities. The present study aimed to test the feasibility and effects on strength and power adaptations of a structured upper-body eccentric training program.
methodsFourteen (median age (Q1-Q3) 29 years (27-32); 9 females, 5 males) healthy, regularly exercising individuals performed 20 progressive training sessions (2-3 sessions/week at 20-50% peak power for 8-14 min) on a symmetric eccentric arm-crank ergometer. Before and after the intervention, anaerobic peak power (PP) and maximal concentric aerobic power output (POmax) on an arm-crank ergometer as well as the one repetition maximum (1RM) for bench press were determined as main outcome parameters. A p-value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsSignificant improvements in PP (+ 4% (1-8), p = 0.007), POmax (+ 6% (0-8); p = 0.01), and 1RM (+ 12% (10-17); p < 0.001) were found. Exercise intensity was relatively low at 64% (55-70) of maximum heart rate.
conclusionsTwenty progressive training sessions on a symmetric arm-crank ergometer are effective in inducing significant aerobic and anaerobic performance and strength improvements in the upper body. This intervention is safe and feasible, and can be performed at relatively low cardiovascular intensities. Therefore, this training method offers an interesting approach from elite sports to rehabilitation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.