Kinesiology Tape or Compression Sleeve Applied to the Thigh Does Not Improve Balance or Muscle Activation Before or Following Fatigue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cavanaugh, MT, Quigley, PJ, Hodgson, DD, Reid, JC, and Behm, DG. Kinesiology tape or compression sleeve applied to the thigh does not improve balance or muscle activation before or following fatigue. J Strength Cond Res 30(7): 1992-2000, 2016-Compression sleeves (CS) and kinesiology tape (KT) are purported to enhance proprioception, however, there is substantial conflict in the literature. Because the beneficial effects of CS and KT are more evident in the literature with recovery, the objective of this study was to examine the effects of CS and KT on balance under acute nonfatigued and postfatigued conditions. Using a within-subject, repeated-measures design, 12 university participants (5 females and 7 males) performed in a random order CS, KT, and Control conditions. Two trials of each test were conducted before the application of CS or KT (pretest 1), immediately after the application (pretest 2), with posttests at 1 and 10 minutes after 4 sets of unilateral Bulgarian squats to failure (1 minute rest between sets). Tests included a Y balance test (measures: distance reached by nondominant foot in anterior, posterior lateral, and posterior medial directions) and drop jump landing balance test from a 50-cm platform (measures: ground reaction force, electromyography, and center of pressure). The fatigue protocol induced 25.3% decrease in unilateral squat repetitions from set 1 to set 4. There were no significant condition main effects or interactions for any balance measure or EMG before or after fatigue. In conclusion, independent of fatigue, there was no significant effect of CS or KT on balance outcomes immediately and up to 10 minutes following the fatiguing intervention. Thus, nonfatigued or muscles weakened by fatigue did not benefit from CS and KT application.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".