↓ Skip to main content

Effects of follicular versus luteal phase-based strength training in young women

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#4 of 1,854)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
27 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
44 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages
reddit
2 Redditors
video
7 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
374 Mendeley
Title
Effects of follicular versus luteal phase-based strength training in young women
Published in
SpringerPlus, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/2193-1801-3-668
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eunsook Sung, Ahreum Han, Timo Hinrichs, Matthias Vorgerd, Carmen Manchado, Petra Platen

Abstract

Hormonal variations during the menstrual cycle (MC) may influence trainability of strength. We investigated the effects of a follicular phase-based strength training (FT) on muscle strength, muscle volume and microscopic parameters, comparing it to a luteal phase-based training (LT). Eumenorrheic women without oral contraception (OC) (N = 20, age: 25.9 ± 4.5 yr, height: 164.2 ± 5.5 cm, weight: 60.6 ± 7.8 kg) completed strength training on a leg press for three MC, and 9 of them participated in muscle biopsies. One leg had eight training sessions in the follicular phases (FP) and only two sessions in the luteal phases (LP) for follicular phase-based training (FT), while the other leg had eight training sessions in LP and only two sessions in FP for luteal phase-based training (LT). Estradiol (E2), progesterone (P4), total testosterone (T), free testosterone (free T) and DHEA-s were analysed once during FP (around day 11) and once during LP (around day 25). Maximum isometric force (Fmax), muscle diameter (Mdm), muscle fibre composition (No), fibre diameter (Fdm) and cell nuclei-to-fibre ratio (N/F) were analysed before and after the training intervention. T and free T were higher in FP compared to LP prior to the training intervention (P < 0.05). The increase in Fmax after FT was higher compared to LT (P <0.05). FT also showed a higher increase in Mdm than LT (P < 0.05). Moreover, we found significant increases in Fdm of fibre type ΙΙ and in N/F only after FT; however, there was no significant difference from LT. With regard to change in fibre composition, no differences were observed between FT and LT. FT showed a higher gain in muscle strength and muscle diameter than LT. As a result, we recommend that eumenorrheic females without OC should base the periodization of their strength training on their individual MC.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 44 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 374 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 370 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 83 22%
Student > Master 75 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 10%
Student > Postgraduate 20 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 4%
Other 56 15%
Unknown 89 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 148 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 37 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 30 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 2%
Other 40 11%
Unknown 98 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 250. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 December 2022.
All research outputs
#123,843
of 22,994,508 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#4
of 1,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,197
of 259,653 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#2
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,994,508 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,854 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 259,653 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.