Psychophysiological Effects of Preperformance Massage Before Isokinetic Exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sports massage provided before an activity is called pre-event massage. The hypothesized effects of pre-event massage include injury prevention, increased performance, and the promotion of a mental state conducive to performance. However, evidence with regard to the effects of pre-event massage is limited and equivocal. The exact manner in which massage produces its hypothesized effects also remains a topic of debate and investigation. This randomized single-blind placebo-controlled crossover design compared the immediate effects of pre-event massage to a sham intervention of detuned ultrasound. Outcome measures included isokinetic peak torque assessments of knee extension and flexion; salivary flow rate, cortisol concentration, and α-amylase activity; mechanical detection thresholds (MDTs) using Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments and mood state using the Profile of Mood States (POMS) questionnaire. This study showed that massage before activity negatively affected subsequent muscle performance in the sense of decreased isokinetic peak torque at higher speed (p < 0.05). Although the study yielded no significant changes in salivary cortisol concentration and α-amylase activity, it found a significant increase in salivary flow rate (p = 0.03). With the massage intervention, there was a significant increase in the MDT at both locations tested (p < 0.01). This study also noted a significant decrease in the tension subscale of the POMS for massage as compared to placebo (p = 0.01). Pre-event massage was found to negatively affect muscle performance possibly because of increased parasympathetic nervous system activity and decreased afferent input with resultant decreased motor-unit activation. However, psychological effects may indicate a role for pre-event massage in some sports, specifically in sportspeople prone to excessive pre-event tension.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".