Potentiation and Recovery Following Low- and High-Speed Isokinetic Contractions in Boys
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to examine the response and recovery to a single set of maximal, low and high angular velocity isokinetic leg extension-flexion contractions with boys. Sixteen boys (11-14 yrs) performed 10 isokinetic contractions at 60°.s-1 (Isok60) and 300°.s-1 (Isok300). Three contractions at both velocities, blood lactate and ratings of perceived exertion were monitored pretest and at 2, 3, 4, and 5 min of recovery (RI). Participants were tested in a random counterbalanced order for each velocity and recovery period. Only a single contraction velocity (300°.s-1 or 60°.s-1) was tested during recovery at each session to remove confounding influences between the recovery intervals. Recovery results showed no change in quadriceps' power at 300°.s-1, quadriceps' power, work and torque at 60°.s-1 and hamstrings' power and work with 60°.s-1. There was an increase during the 2 min RI in hamstrings' power, work and torque and quadriceps' torque with isokinetic contractions at 300°.s-1 suggesting a potentiating effect. Performance impairments during recovery occurred for the hamstrings torque at 60°.s-1 and quadriceps work with 300°.s-1. In conclusion, 10 repetitions of either low or high velocity isokinetic contractions (Isok60 or Isok300) resulted in full recovery or potentiation of most measures within 2 min in boys. The potentiation effect predominantly occurred following the hamstrings Isok300 which might be attributed to a greater agonist-antagonist torque balance and less metabolic stress associated with the shorter duration higher velocity contractions.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it