Cited by 192Cardiovascular and exercise physiologySports Performance and TrainingMuscle activation and electromyography studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 23 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Slower fatigue and faster recovery of the adductor pollicis muscle in women matched for strength with men

Open access
Fulco, Rock, Muza, Lammi, Cymerman, Butterfield, Moore, Braun, Lewis·1999·Acta Physiologica Scandinavica

Abstract

In previous gender comparisons of muscle performance, men and women rarely have been closely matched, absolute force has not been equalized, and rates of fatigue and early recovery have not been determined. We compared adductor pollicis muscle performance at a similar absolute force development in healthy men and women (both n=9) matched for adductor pollicis maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) force (132 ± 5 N for women and 136 ± 4 N for men, mean ± SE, P > 0.05). Subjects repeated static contractions at a target force of ≈50% of MVC force of rested muscle (68 ± 3 N or 51.9 ± 1.0% MVC for women and 72 ± 2 N or 53.0 ± 2.0% MVC for men, P > 0.05) for 5 s followed by 5 s rest until exhaustion, i.e. inability to maintain the target force for 5 s. MVC force was measured following each minute of exercise, at exhaustion, and after each minute for 3 min of passive recovery. For women compared with men: MVC force fell less after 1 min of exercise (to 93 ± 1% vs. 80 ± 3% of MVC force of rested muscle, respectively, P < 0.05); MVC force (N min–1) fell ≈2‐fold slower (P < 0.05); and endurance time to exhaustion was nearly two times longer (14.7 ± 1.6 min vs. 7.9 ± 0.7 min, P < 0.05). After declining to a similar level of MVC force of rested muscle at exhaustion (56 ± 1% for women and 56 ± 3% for men), MVC force rose faster in women than in men (to 71 ± 2% vs. 65 ± 3% of MVC force of rested muscle, respectively; P < 0.05) during the first minute of recovery. The findings are consistent with the hypothesis that slower adductor pollicis muscle fatigue in women is linked with differences between men and women both in impairment of force generating capacity, per se, and in rates of recovery between contractions.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In healthy men and women matched for adductor pollicis maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) force, women fatigued more slowly, endured intermittent static contractions nearly twice as long, and recovered force faster in the first minute after exhaustion than men. The authors attribute the slower fatigue partly to a greater capacity to recover force between contractions, possibly via oxidative phosphorylation in fast-twitch fibres.

Key findings

  • After 1 min of intermittent static contractions at ~50% MVC, MVC force fell to 93 ± 1% of rested MVC in women versus 80 ± 3% in men (P < 0.05), a ~3-fold greater fall in men (−27 ± 4 N vs. −9 ± 2 N, P < 0.01).
  • Overall fatigue rate was ~2-fold slower in women: mean linear slope of MVC decline was −3.9 ± 0.5 N min⁻¹ for women vs. −8.0 ± 2.1 N min⁻¹ for men (P < 0.05).
  • Endurance time to exhaustion was nearly twice as long in women (14.7 ± 1.6 min vs. 7.9 ± 0.7 min, P < 0.05); all men completed 4 min but none exceeded 12 min, while all women completed 10 min and only three of nine had reached exhaustion by minute 12.
  • Exhaustion occurred at similar force in both sexes (56 ± 1% vs. 56 ± 3% of rested MVC, P > 0.05), but during the first minute of recovery MVC force rose faster in women (to 71 ± 2% vs. 65 ± 3% of rested MVC, P < 0.05); no significant gender difference remained at minutes 2 and 3.

Methods

  • Cross-sectional comparison of 9 women and 9 men matched as closely as possible for rested adductor pollicis MVC force (132 ± 5 N vs. 136 ± 4 N, P > 0.05); matching was done by ranking results within each gender and discarding data from 8 women and 2 men out of 17 women and 11 men originally tested.
  • Subjects performed intermittent static adductor pollicis contractions (5 s at a target of 50% of rested MVC, followed by 5 s rest) until exhaustion, with an MVC substituted every sixth contraction; MVCs were also measured at exhaustion and each minute for 3 min of passive recovery.
  • Analysis used two-tailed unpaired t-tests for rested MVC, fatigue rate and endurance time, and two-factor ANOVA (gender × time) with Tukey's multiple comparison procedure for exercise and recovery force; significance set at P < 0.05. Women were tested in Palo Alto, CA and men in Natick, MA, using identical apparatus, procedures and investigators.

Limitations

  • The paper states the design did not include measurements to distinguish potential gender differences in impairment of muscle activation (central motor drive, neuromuscular propagation, reflex excitation) as a cause of fatigue.
  • The paper states the findings do not identify precise mechanisms responsible for the gender differences; the fibre-type and oxidative-phosphorylation explanations are explicitly presented as hypotheses.
  • Evident from the text: men and women were tested at two different study locations, and the strength-matching procedure discarded a substantial portion of the originally tested subjects (8 of 17 women, 2 of 11 men), which the paper does not discuss as a limitation.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-201x.1999.00613.x

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

13 Not checked yet · 9 Own result · 6 Own method · 6 Own interpretation

Verify all 23 references — free account

Show all 19 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 7
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 10
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
15 of 15
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The observed gender differences in adductor pollicis fatigue and recovery are not due to differences between the groups in age, height, or weight.

    “Age, height, and weight were 24 1 year, 169 2 cm, and 64 3 kg for the women and 29 1 year, 179 2 cm and 79 3 kg for the men.”
1 of 1

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 33 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–192 of 192

Metadata

Authors
Fulco, Rock, Muza, Lammi, Cymerman, Butterfield, Moore, Braun, & Lewis
Affiliations
  • U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine (US)
  • Boston University (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Fulco
Venue
Acta Physiologica Scandinavica
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1999-11
Volume
167
Issue
3
Pages
233-239
ISSN
  • 0001-6772 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-201X
OpenAlex
W2081459731
Cited by
192
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 7
FWCI
6.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Acta Physiologica Scandinavica (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Muscle activation and electromyography studies
Keywords
adductor pollicis, muscle fatigue, fatigue recovery, sex differences, endurance, isometric contraction, women
MeSH terms
Adult, Electric Stimulation, Exercise Test, Female, Humans, Male, Muscle Contraction, Sex Characteristics, Thumb, Transducers, Pressure, Muscle, Skeletal, Muscle Fatigue

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review