ArticleExperimental brain research2025
Corticospinal drive modulation to agonist and antagonist arm muscles following strength training and detraining.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the corticospinal drive modulation to Agonist and Antagonist arm muscles following Strength training and detraining, as neural adaptations are critical for early strength gains. Seventeen healthy, untrained young adults underwent four weeks of unilateral dumbbell curl training (60-80% of one-repetition maximum) followed by four weeks of detraining. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) assessed corticospinal excitability and inhibition across multiple intensities (100-200% rMT). Strength training induced progressive 1-RM improvements in both agonist (BB: +37%, d = 4.18) and antagonist (TB: +15%, d = 0.32) muscles, with partial retention during detraining. The MEP increased selectively in the agonist (BB: +44%, d = 2.80) but not the antagonist muscle, while cSP decreased markedly in the agonist (BB: -42%, d = 2.0). No significant correlations emerged between strength changes and neural adaptations. Secondary outcomes showed transient increases in co-activation and arm circumference during training (p < 0.001). Strength training and detraining modulate corticospinal responses in agonist and antagonist muscles, highlighting their role in early strength acquisition and loss. These neural adaptations provide insight into the mechanisms underlying strength changes during training and detraining.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40888935What 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.