Effects of Resistance Training With Constant, Inertial, and Combined Loads on Muscle Power and Strength Output

The aim of this study was to investigate the resistance-specific gains in muscle power and strength (1RM) following the training of maximum bench-press throws (BPT) against constant, inertial, and combined resistance. Forty-eight male participants (age 20.5 ± 2.0 years) were randomly assigned to the constant, inertial, combined resistance, or control group. Participants underwent 8 weeks of training of BPT against the loads that corresponded to the different effects of mass of 40 kg (∼50% of 1RM). The gains in average and maximum power, and 1RM were significant in all experimental groups (P < 0.01), but not in the control group (P > 0.1). Relative gains in the average (26.3 ± 9.8%) and maximum power (25.2 ± 9.8%) were larger than that in the 1RM (mean 7.2 ± 6.9%; both P < 0.001). The gains in the average (F4, 66 = 6.0; P < 0.01) and maximum power (F4, 66 = 4.7; P < 0.01) were higher when tested against the training-specific resistance than when tested against the remaining two resistance types. Differences in 1RM among experimental groups were not significant (P = 0.092). The most important and rather novel finding of the study is that the training against the weight and inertial resistance, and their combination results in resistance-specific gains in muscle power, although the overall gains muscle strength and power remain comparable across the training protocols.

Does Power Always Flow to the Executive? Interbranch Oscillations in Legislative Authority, 1976–2014

Is legislative power flowing to the executive branch over time? Beginning in the 1990s, comparativists began to investigate delegation to the executive under different executive formats. Hypothesized causes include collective action problems due to legislative fractionalization, the presence of a dominant pro-executive faction, preference congruence vis-à-vis the head of government, and challenges posed by economic crises. We test these four hypotheses on a data set containing 2,020 country-year observations of democracies and semi-democracies between 1976 and 2014. Using V-Dem data, we derive annualized measures of shifts in executive–legislative relationships. Contrary to stereotypes of executive dominance, relative gains by legislatures are no less frequent than gains by executives, and economic crises do not advantage political executives in consistent ways. Surprisingly, some of the factors expected to benefit executives seem to enhance assembly authority as well. Robust democracy maintains interbranch power relations in equilibrium, while lower levels of polyarchy are associated with greater ‘noise’ in the relationship.

Long-term trend of quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicities (Q-TWiST) of nivolumab+ipilimumab (N+I) versus sunitinib (SUN) for the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC).

6568 Background: After a minimum follow-up of 48 months (mos), the CheckMate 214 trial (phase 3, NCT02231749) continued to demonstrate a significant overall (OS) and progression-free (PFS) survival benefit for N+I vs. SUN in aRCC patients (pts) with intermediate (I) or poor (P) International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk factors (median OS: 48.1 vs. 26.6 mos, HR: 0.65, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.54, 0.78; 48-mos PFS: 32.7% vs. 12.3%, HR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.62, 0.88) (Albiges et al. ESMO Open 2020). To further understand the clinical benefits and risks of N+I vs. SUN, we evaluated the Q-TWiST over time using up to 57 mos of follow-up in CheckMate 214. Methods: OS was partitioned into 3 states: time with any grade 3 or 4 adverse events (TOX), time without symptoms of disease or toxicity (TWiST), and time after progression (REL). The Q-TWiST is a metric that combines the quantity and quality (i.e., “utility”) of time spent in each of the 3 states TWiST, TOX, and REL. Prior research (Revicki et al, Qual Life Res, 2006) has established that relative gains in Q-TWiST (i.e., Q-TWiST gain divided by OS in SUN) of ≥ 10% and ≥ 15% can be considered as “clinically important” and “clearly clinically important”, respectively. Non-parametric bootstrapping was used to generate 95% CIs. To observe changes in quality-adjusted survival gains over time, absolute and relative Q-TWiST were calculated up to 57 mos at intervals of 12-mos. Results: With 57-mos follow-up, compared to SUN pts, N+I pts (N = 847) had significantly longer time in TWiST state (+7.1 mos [95% CI: 4.2, 10.4]). The between-group differences in TOX state (0.3 mos [95% CI: -0.2, 0.8]) and REL state (-1.2 mos [95% CI: -4.1, 1.5]) were not statistically significant. The Q-TWiST gain in the N+I vs. SUN arms was 6.6 mos (95% CI: 4.1, 9.4), resulting in a 21.2% relative gain. Q-TWiST gains progressively increased over the follow-up period and exceeded the “clinically important” threshold around 27 mos (Table). These gains were driven by steady increases in TWiST gains from 0.4 mos (after 12 mos) to 7.1 mos (after 57 mos). Conclusions: In CheckMate 214, N+I resulted in a statistically significant and “clearly clinically important (≥ 15%)” longer quality-adjusted survival vs. SUN, which increased over the longer follow-up time. Q-TWiST gains were primarily driven by time in “good” health (i.e., TWiST), which largely resulted from the long-term PFS benefits seen for N+I vs. SUN. Clinical trial information: NCT02231749. [Table: see text]

L2 Expository Text Reading Instruction: A Graphic Organiser-Based Methodology

A mixed method research design was employed to investigate the effects of using graphic organizers (GOs) to facilitate expository text comprehension in a college EFL reading context. Participants were two intact groups (n = 21, n = 31) of 1st year Japanese engineering undergraduates. Over a six-week study period, treatment group practiced using teacher-generated mapping templates when reading. Control group completed text-based comprehension questions. Treatment effects were examined by pre-and post-testing, to examine if using GOs transferred into quantitative improvements in learner comprehension. Treatment group also completed a survey on the efficacy of GO-based reading in improving reading confidence, understanding of rhetorical structure/organization, motivation and interest. Results showed there was high variability in both group’s scores on both tests. Although control group scored significantly higher on both (p < .05) tests, relative gains in the treatment group were significantly higher in non-parametric analysis. Survey responses indicated that using GOs had a positive effect in several areas.

The Long Recovery from the Great Recession: An Introduction

The first two decades of the twenty-first century have been marked by the Great Recession (GR), which was followed by the longest recovery in U.S. history, here termed the Long Recovery (LR). The LR lasted more than 10 years and ended with a pandemic bang in March 2020. This article introduces the eighteen articles that make up our review of the effects of the LR on the working class. What did more than a decade of economic expansion following the GR do for the working class and various groups of disadvantaged workers? We study this question through the lenses of economics, demography, sociology, and policy. The working class—lower-middle-income units, especially those whose adults have low education levels or other credentials—was hit hard by the GR. Did groups who are usually at a labor market disadvantage in fact make absolute and relative gains in incomes and living standards during the LR? Lessons from the LR will help to inform policy efforts to sustain the postpandemic economic expansion, which is still under way as of this writing.

Fair Share? Equality and Equity in American Attitudes Toward Trade

American politicians repeatedly and strenuously invoke concerns about fairness when pitching their trade policies to their constituents, unsurprisingly since fairness is one of the most fundamental and universal moral concepts. Yet studies to date on public opinion about trade have not been designed in such a way that they test whether fairness is important, nor whether the mass public applies fairness standards impartially. Drawing on findings in social psychology and behavioral economics, we develop and find evidence for an “asymmetric fairness” argument. In a national survey of Americans, we find strong evidence that fairness, conceived in terms of equality, is crucial for understanding support for potential trade deals and support for renegotiating existing ones. Americans view as most fair and most preferable outcomes in which concessions and benefits are equal across countries, especially when those equal benefits match productivity. However, we find that Americans have an egoistically biased sense of fairness, responding particularly negatively to any outcome that leaves the United States relatively worse off—a sense of injustice that does not extend to the same degree to relative gains for Americans.

Epidemiological impact of prioritising SARS-CoV-2 vaccination by antibody status: mathematical modelling analyses

BackgroundVaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have been developed, but their availability falls far short of global needs. This study aimed to investigate the impact of prioritising available doses on the basis of recipient antibody status, that is by exposure status, using Qatar as an example.MethodsVaccination impact (defined as the reduction in infection incidence and the number of vaccinations needed to avert one infection or one adverse disease outcome) was assessed under different scale-up scenarios using a deterministic meta-population mathematical model describing SARS-CoV-2 transmission and disease progression in the presence of vaccination.ResultsFor a vaccine that protects against infection with an efficacy of 95%, half as many vaccinations were needed to avert one infection, disease outcome or death by prioritising antibody-negative individuals for vaccination. Prioritisation by antibody status reduced incidence at a faster rate and led to faster elimination of infection and return to normalcy. Further prioritisation by age group amplified the gains of prioritisation by antibody status. Gains from prioritisation by antibody status were largest in settings where the proportion of the population already infected at the commencement of vaccination was 30%–60%. For a vaccine that only protects against disease and not infection, vaccine impact was reduced by half, whether this impact was measured in terms of averted infections or disease outcomes, but the relative gains from using antibody status to prioritise vaccination recipients were similar.ConclusionsMajor health and economic gains can be achieved more quickly by prioritizing those who are antibody-negative while doses of the vaccine remain in short supply.

Who Gets What: The Economy, Relative Gains and Brexit

There has been a lively debate about the economic and cultural-based drivers of support for populism. This article argues that economic concerns matter, but that they are realized through the relative gains and losses of social groups. Using new survey items in a large representative survey administered in Britain, it shows that citizens' economic assessments of the ethnic minority out-group – in relation to the group's situation 12 months ago and to assessments of the economic conditions of the white British in-group – are a predictor of support for Brexit. The results, which are robust to prior referendum vote, immigration attitudes and cultural sentiment, extend across income groups and national identity strength. Extending the analysis to a comparison of geographic in- and out-groups between local communities and London lends additional support to the argument. The implications of relative group-based economics are important for understanding Brexit and the economic sources of support for populism more broadly.

Relative gains and the Common Agricultural Policy: the French government’s decision to reject the Blair House Agreement and block the completion of the Uruguay Round in 1993

CESAA 19th ANNUAL EUROPE ESSAY COMPETITION 2011 - Undergraduate winner: Dan Norrie (Monash University)The French government’s rejection of the Blair House Agreement in 1993 enabled France to resist agricultural reform and achieve relative gains over other European Union States. The existence of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) allows France to extract the economic surplus of European Union (EU) members through taxes and subsidies, which artificially improve the competitiveness of French agriculture. France took advantage of the EU principle of consensus by adopting a strategy of non-compliance to agricultural negotiations, positioning it to directly influence EU Commission policy. This allowed France to benefit from EU bargaining power in the Uruguay Round, and ensure greater concessions from States driving agricultural reform. The reinstatement of veto power in the EU Community has made future agricultural reform more difficult, allowing France to continue to realise welfare gains at the expense of other EU members. The paper adopts a literature review to analyse French national interest and the costs and benefits of foreign policy strategies.

Moderate Innovator Trap—Does the Convergence of Innovation Performance Occur in the World Economy?

Based on β and σ convergence analysis, we find a high persistence of innovation gaps for international innovation indices reported by the European Commission. Our research confirms the diverging scientific potential across the analyzed economies. Estimation provides evidence of convergence in the case of R&D expenses and the relative position on the global technological frontier. We propose a simple fixed effect panel regression measuring relative innovativeness potential. Our model suggests that current ranking leaders, i.e., Nordic countries (Sweden, Denmark, and Finland) and Germany, are likely to further outpace the United States. Central and Eastern European countries are achieving the greatest relative gains but are unlikely to exceed 70% of US potential. Peripheral European countries, South Africa, Turkey, and Russia are projected to further lose their innovativeness position despite their weaker initial position.