Effect of overreaching on cognitive performance and related cardiac autonomic control
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 purpose of this study was to characterize the effect of a 2-week overload period immediately followed by a 1-week taper period on different cognitive processes including executive and nonexecutive functions, and related heart rate variability. Eleven male endurance athletes increased their usual training volume by 100% for 2 weeks, and decreased it by 50% for 1 week. A maximal graded test, a constant speed test at 85% of peak treadmill speed, and a Stroop task with the measurement of heart rate variability were performed at each period. All participants were considered as overreached. We found a moderate increase in the overall reaction time to the three conditions of the Stroop task after the overload period (816 ± 83 vs 892 ± 117 ms, P = 0.03) followed by a return to baseline after the taper period (820 ± 119 ms, P = 0.013). We found no association between cognitive performance and cardiac parasympathetic control at baseline, and no association between changes in these measures. Our findings clearly underscore the relevance of cognitive performance in the monitoring of overreaching in endurance athletes. However, contrary to our hypothesis, we did not find any relationship between executive performance and cardiac parasympathetic control.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it