MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Influence of Periodized Strength Training on Females With and Without Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain

2010· article· en· W2063290556 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Kell

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyRehabilitationStrength trainingOne-repetition maximumLow back painPhysical strengthMuscle strength

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low back pain (LBP) is a considerable health and socioeconomic hindrance on western society. Chronic (≥3 months) non-specific (soft tissue) low back pain (CLBP) is the most common diagnosis. Recently, periodized strength training was successfully used as a form of CLBP rehabilitation. Thirteen weeks of periodized strength training (i.e., musculoskeletal rehabilitation) by CLBP participants produced ∼40% increases in strength; these increases are similar to other research studies using healthy participants. PURPOSE: To clearly establish if females with and without CLBP show similar increases in muscular strength following 11 weeks of periodized strength training. METHODS: Forty five females (24±3.2 yrs) volunteered for the study. The CLBP (n=15) and no LBP (non-LBP) (n=15) groups completed 16-weeks of testing (5 test sessions) and periodized strength training (11 weeks; 3-4 days. week-1). The control group (C, n=15) was disallowed to strength train during the study, but maintained other recreational activities and took part in all testing sessions. Average weekly training volume and intensity were 1,563 repetitions and 67% 1 repetition maximum (RM), respectively. All participants received instruction on exercise technique and RM protocol. Testing occurred at pre-familiarization, pre-strength, and at weeks 4, 8 and 12 of strength training. The participants completed 2-weeks of familiarization, followed by 9-weeks of strength training. The CLBP group's mean pain score (10-point scale) was 4.9 prior to familiarization testing. RESULTS: The p-level was set at ≤0.05. At baseline no significant (p≤0.05) differences were noted between the groups on age, height, body mass, body fat, or strength. Significant (p≤0.05) increases in strength from pre-strength to week 12 were found in both groups: CLBP (Week 4: leg press=13%, bench press=14%; Week 12: leg press=55%, bench press=39%); and non-LBP (Week 4: leg press=10%, bench press=11%; Week 12: leg press=40%, bench press=34%). No significant (p≤0.05) differences were noted between the training groups at any testing points. CONCLUSION: Females with CLBP are able make significant increases in strength following 11 weeks of periodized strength training, attaining similar strength increases as no LBP females. Sponsored by the Augustana Research and Travel grant.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→