Self-control training leads to enhanced cardiovascular exercise performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to investigate the effects of two weeks of self-control strength training on maximum cardiovascular exercise performance. Forty-one participants completed a cognitive self-control depletion task (Stroop task) followed by a maximal graded cycling test and were randomized to training (maximal endurance contractions of spring handgrip trainers, twice daily) or no-treatment control groups. At follow-up (2 weeks), half of each group completed either a time-matched or trial-matched Stroop task followed by another maximal graded cycling test. Results showed a significant 2-way (training X time) interaction (P < 0.001), and a trend for the 3-way (training X time X cognitive task) interaction (P = 0.07). Decomposition of the interactions revealed that across sessions cycling performance increased in both training groups, did not change in the trial-matched cognitive task control group, and declined in the time-matched control group. We conclude that isometric handgrip training leads to self-control strength adaptations that enhance maximal cardiovascular exercise performance or tolerance of exercise at maximal levels of effort.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".