Effect of different recovery patterns on repeated-sprint ability and neuromuscular responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the effect of recovery pattern on mechanical and neuromuscular responses in active men during three repeated-sprint ability tests consisting of ten 6-s cycling sprints. Within each test, the recovery duration was manipulated: constant, increasing, and decreasing recovery pattern. Maximal voluntary contractions of the knee extensors were performed before and after the repeated-sprint ability tests to assess strength and electromyographic activity [root mean square (RMS)] of the quadriceps muscle. We observed different fatigue patterns for peak and mean power output between recovery patterns, with earlier decrements recorded during the increasing recovery pattern. Total work performed over the ten sprints was also lower in the increasing recovery pattern (43.8 +/- 5.4 kJ; P < 0.05). However, the decreasing recovery pattern induced a greater overall power output decrement across the sprints (-15.8%; P < 0.05), compared with the increasing recovery pattern (-5.1%) but not the constant recovery pattern (-10.1%). The decreasing recovery pattern was also associated with higher post-sprint RMS values (+16.2%; P < 0.05). Therefore, the recovery pattern within successive short sprints may influence repeated-sprint ability, and may lead to greater post-sprint neuromuscular adjustments when recovery intervals decrease between sprints. We conclude that peripheral impairments caused the major differences in repeated-sprint ability between recovery patterns.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".