ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2026
Eccentric contraction duration in bodyweight resistance exercise training for changes in physical function and health parameters of older adults.
Article in European journal of applied physiology, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionIn bodyweight resistance exercises, slow eccentric contractions are commonly performed, but it is not clear how slow they should be to maximize changes in physical function and health parameters following training. We tested the hypothesis that a longer eccentric contraction (5-s) would induce greater effects on older adults than a shorter contraction (3-s).
methodsForty-six healthy older adults (77.1 ± 7.0 y) performed six bodyweight resistance exercises twice weekly for 10 weeks with 3-s (n = 24) or 5-s (n = 22) eccentric contractions but minimum effort for concentric contractions in each exercise, thus the between group difference was only the eccentric contraction duration. Resting heart rate, systolic blood pressure (SBP), maximal voluntary isometric contraction strength of the knee extensors (MVC), five-times sit-to-stand (5STS), 3-m timed up and go (TUG), 6-m normal walking time (6WT), one-leg standing test with eyes open (OLST) and blood lipid parameters were assessed before and after the intervention, and compared between groups using two-way repeated-measures ANOVA.
resultsNo significant differences were observed between groups (P = 0.159-0.914) for changes in the measures. Both groups showed significant (P < 0.05) improvements in SBP ( ~ - 5%), MVC (~ 8%), 5STS ( ~ - 7%), TUG ( ~ - 5%), total cholesterol ( ~ - 6%), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ( ~ - 9%). It is interesting to note that attrition was lower in the 3-s group (17%) than the 5-s group (50%).
conclusionThese results did not support the hypothesis and showed no significant differences between groups. The higher retention in the 3-s group may suggest greater practicality, although this may not be attributed to the contraction duration alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42762322What 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.