MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

THE EFFECT OF COMPRESSION CLOTHING ON MUSCULAR STRENGTH AND ENDURANCE

2002· article· en· W2044346286 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanics and Biomechanics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClothingCompression (physics)Physical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineMathematicsOrthodonticsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Claims have been made in the popular press as to the efficacy of compression clothing to improve endurance and jumping performance. The press has reported a 30% enhancement of endurance and power. Dupont, Brooks, Spalding, and other companies have incorporated the compression concept into athletic clothing according to magazine reports. The purpose of the proposed study was to determine the efficacy of compression athletic clothing to enhance muscular strength and endurance in target muscle groups. METHOD: The study was a repeated measure cross over design. Four compression garments (Bioconcepts, Phoenix, Arizona) were custom fabricated for each athlete. Two were “t-shirts” that extended to the elbow bilaterally and two garments were “shorts” that extended to the knees. The garments were designed to provide 40mm Hg compression unilaterally, and the second garment provided compression to the opposite side. Varsity, provincial and national level athletes (n = 15) from a variety of sports were recruited to perform repeated isokinetic testing (Biodex 3, Shirley, New York) of elbow flexion/extension and knee flexion extension at 120 degrees/second wearing each of the garments. Statistically, eight within-subject comparisons were made. We evaluated whether there were statistically significant differences between compressed and non-compressed conditions for each direction (flexion/extension), on each limb. For example, we tested whether there was a statistically significant difference between right elbow flexion when compressed compared to non-compressed. Summary of Results: There were no statistically significant differences in performance using compression garments for 7 of 8 tests (p-values ranged from 0.2 to 0.9). Left elbow extension demonstrated a statistically significant decrement in performance with compression (p = 0.03). Discussion: A randomized repeated measure design provides a strong scientific method to investigate the effect of compression athletic garments. We would expect, given the magazine reports, to find consistent improvements in muscular performance. However, none of the cross over tests provided support for any consistent benefit from the use of compression garments. Therefore, the use of compression garments remains a personal preference rather than a demonstrable advantage. The current study has limitations. Most important is the variability in the perceived compression. Some subjects only noticed a small difference between sides, whereas others felt compression to an uncomfortable level. We did not measure the actual level of compression. More subjects are needed to determine if the results of the current study are consistent and reproducible. Acknowledgements: The Olympic Oval and the Olympic Oval Endowment Fund, Calgary, Alberta provided funding.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.219 · 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