Physioacoustic therapy: placebo effect on recovery from exercise-induced muscle damage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated claims that physioacoustic therapy can enhance muscle healing following damaging exercise. Untrained subjects were randomly assigned to control (C), placebo (P) or treatment (T) groups. All groups performed 70 eccentric triceps contractions followed by; no treatment (C), sham physioacoustic treatment (P), or actual physioacoustic therapy (T) on days 1–4 post-exercise. Muscle soreness and isometric and concentric triceps peak torque were determined pre-exerciseand on days 1–4 and 7 post-exercise. The T group received physioacoustic therapy for 30 min/day on the treatment days. The P group believed they received physioacoustic therapy, although the chairs were turned off. Peak torques were depressed (P < 0.05) on days 1–3 in all groups and returned to pre-exercise values by days 4–7 in both P and T groups. C group peak torques remained depressed (P < 0.05) through day 7. Soreness was elevated (P < 0.05) in all groups on days 1–2 post-exercise. P and T groups reported no soreness by day 3 while the C group remained sore (P < 0.05) through days 3–4. The T group recovered soreness and force faster than C but at a similar rate to the P group. The effectiveness of physioacoustic therapy in enhancing post-exercise muscle healing may be attributable to a placebo effect.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".