CHANGES IN SUPPORT FOR U.S. BLACK MOVEMENTS, 1966–2016: FROM CIVIL RIGHTS TO BLACK LIVES MATTER

Black Lives Matter is often unfavorably compared to the civil rights movement based on assumptions that the earlier movement was more palatable to a white public. Available data, however, demonstrate the civil rights movement’s unpopularity with contemporaneous white audiences. In this article I ask if white public support for Black social movements has changed over time. If so, what explains these shifts in support? Using logistic regression, I compare white audience views of Black movements in 1966 and 2016. I find that white support for Black movements has increased, but this shift is not uniform. While 1966 support is correlated with education, income, and liberal attitudes, support in 2016 is driven by polarized political attitudes and increased support among youth and women. Surprisingly, the education effect disappears entirely in the 2016 analysis. The results demonstrate the fluidity of movement audiences, which are strongly impacted by changes in the broader political context.

Elbow Joint Angles in Elbow Flexor Unilateral Resistance Exercise Training Determine Its Effects on Muscle Strength and Thickness of Trained and Non-trained Arms

The present study compared two unilateral arm curl resistance exercise protocols with a different starting and finishing elbow joint angle in the same ROM for changes in elbow flexors strength and muscle thickness of the trained and non-trained arms. Thirty-two non-resistance trained young adults were randomly assigned to one of the three groups: extended joint training (0°–50°; EXT, n = 12); flexed joint training (80°–130°; FLE, n = 12); and non-training control (n = 8). The exercise training was performed by the dominant arms twice a week for 5 weeks with gradual increases in the training volume over 10 training sessions, and the non-dominant (non-trained) arms were investigated for the cross-education effect. Maximal voluntary contraction torque of isometric (MVC-ISO), concentric (MVC-CON), and eccentric contractions (MVC-ECC), and thickness (MT) of biceps brachii and brachialis of the trained and non-trained arms were assessed at baseline and 4–8 days after the last training session. The control group did not show significant changes in any variables. Significant (P < 0.05) increases in MVC-ISO torque (16.2 ± 12.6%), MVC-CON torque (21.1 ± 24.4%), and MVC-ECC torque (19.6 ± 17.5%) of the trained arm were observed for the EXT group only. The magnitude of the increase in MT of the trained arm was greater (P < 0.05) for EXT (8.9 ± 3.9%) than FLE (3.4 ± 2.7%). The cross-education effect was evident for MVC-ISO (15.9 ± 14.8%) and MVC-CON (16.7 ± 20.0%) torque of the EXT group only. These results suggest that resistance training at the extended elbow joint induces greater muscle adaptations and cross-education effects than that at flexed elbow joint.

Cross-education and detraining effects of eccentric vs. concentric resistance training of the elbow flexors

Background Unilateral resistance training increases the strength of the contralateral non-trained homologous muscles known as the cross-education effect. We tested the hypothesis that unilateral eccentric resistance training (ET) would induce greater and longer-lasting cross-education effect when compared with concentric resistance training (CT). Methods Young (20–23 y) participants were allocated to ET (5 males, 4 females) or CT (5 males, 4 females) group that performed unilateral progressive ET or CT of the elbow flexors, twice a week for 5 weeks (10 sessions) followed by a 5-week detraining, and control group (7 males, 6 females) that did not perform any training. Maximum voluntary isometric contraction torque of the elbow flexors (MVIC), one-repetition maximum of concentric dumbbell curl (1-RM), and biceps brachii and brachialis muscle thickness (MT) were measured from the trained and non-trained arms before, several days after the last training session, and 5 weeks later. A ratio between the trained and non-trained arms for the change in MVIC or 1-RM from pre- to post-training (cross-body transfer ratio) was compared between ET and CT groups. Results The control group did not show significant changes in any variables. Both ET and CT increased (P < 0.05) MVIC (22.5 ± 12.3 % vs. 26.0 ± 11.9 %) and 1-RM (28.8 ± 6.6 % vs. 35.4 ± 12.9 %) of the trained arm without a significant difference between groups. MVIC was maintained after detraining for ET but returned to the baseline for CT, and 1-RM was maintained after detraining for both ET and CT. For the non-trained arm, MVIC (22.7 ± 17.9 % vs. 12.2 ± 10.2 %) and 1-RM (19.9 ± 14.6 % vs. 24.0 ± 10.6 %) increased similarly (P > 0.05) after ET and CT, and MVIC returned to the baseline after detraining, but 1-RM was maintained for both groups. An increase (P < 0.05) in MT was found only after ET for the trained arm (7.1 ± 6.1 %). The cross-body transfer ratio for MVIC was greater (P < 0.05) for ET (90.9 ± 46.7 %) than CT (49.0 ± 30.0 %). Conclusions These results did not support the hypothesis and showed similar changes in the most of the variables between ET and CT for the trained and non-trained arms, and strong cross-education effects on MVIC and 1-RM, but less detraining effect after ET than CT on MVIC of the trained arm. Trial registration University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000044477; Jun 09, 2021).