MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Testing the Water

2004· article· en· W1970191782 on OpenAlexaff
Doug L. Stacey, Kathleen A. Martin Ginis, Michael Poling, Martin J. Gibala

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWingate testPhysical therapyMedicineHydrotherapyInterval trainingAnaerobic exercise

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

0126 Hydrotherapy (HYDRO), or the alternating use of hot and cold tubs (“contrast baths”), is frequently used by athletes in an attempt to speed recovery from intense exercise. HYDRO is purported to induce “vascular pumping” of peripheral blood vessels, promote the flow of nutrients to exercised muscles and accelerate the removal of “waste products.” Despite its popularity, few data are available to validate the proposed benefits of this intervention. PURPOSE: We examined the effect of HYDRO during recovery from daily high-intensity interval training (HIT) on physical performance and related psychological variables. METHODS: Twelve active men (25–35 yrs; VO2peak = 46±3 ml·kg−1·min−1) performed 5 consecutive days of HIT (4–6 bouts × 30 sec 'all out' Wingate Tests, with 4-min recovery). Following each HIT session, subjects either rested for 20 min (Control; CON, n = 6) or completed a HYDRO protocol (n = 6) of equivalent duration that consisted of alternating cold (10°C) and hot (40°C) tubs using a 4 × 2:3 min ratio. Peak (Wmax) and mean (Wmean) power during a 30-s Wingate test, VO2peak and time to complete a 250 kJ Time Trial (TT) were assessed before and 2–3 day following HIT. A profile of Mood States (POMS) and questionnaires designed to assess exercise preparedness were also completed daily. RESULTS: Wmax increased by ∼9% after SIT (main effect, P<0.05), but there was no difference between groups (HYDRO: Post: 1310±110 vs Pre: 1215±211; CON: Post: 1343±132 vs Pre: 1220±181 W, means±SD). TT performance also improved after HIT (main effect, P<0.05) with no difference between groups (HYDRO: Post: 15.8±1.5 vs Pre: 16.7±1.7; CON: Post: 18.1± vs Pre: 18.8±3.0 min). Wmean and VO2peak were unchanged after HIT. There were no differences in POMS subscale scores, however the HYDRO group reported feeling more revitalized after each treatment session and greater preparedness for subsequent exercise (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: 5 d of HIT (∼15 min total exercise time) increased peak anaerobic power and decreased the time required to complete a defined bout of work. HYDRO created the perception that subjects were better prepared for exercise, but did not further enhance performance. Supported by the Hamilton District Physiotherapy Association and the Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation Research Fund.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.013

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicCardiovascular and exercise physiology→French-language works237,207→