Effect of an Ankle Compression Garment on Fatigue and Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the effects of an ankle compression garment (CG) on muscle performance and physiological variables associated with recovery from fatigue. Fifteen participants took part in a randomized crossover study design with 2 experimental conditions (ankle CG and control). The dependent variables skin temperature, evoked muscle contractile properties, maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) force, electromyography (EMG), drop jump performance (20, 35, and 50 cm box heights), continuous drop jump (30 cm), time to fatigue (TTF), and blood lactate concentration were measured pre- and post-warm-up and postfatigue. Compared with control condition, ankle CG condition had significantly reduced half-relaxation times (p = 0.043) and higher skin temperatures at post-warm-up and post-fatigue protocol (p < 0.001, Δ3.2 and Δ4%, respectively). Participants also exhibited significantly lower ground reaction forces (GRFs) for 50-cm drop jumps (p = 0.044, Δ9.9%) with ankle CG at post-warm-up. There were no significant differences between conditions for muscle contractile properties, MVC force or EMG, jump height, take-off velocity, contact time, and jumping TTF. Independent of group, there was a threefold increase in blood lactate (p < 0.01) from pre-warm-up to post-fatigue and a significant decrease in MVC force (p = 0.048, Δ8.1%) from post-warm-up to postfatigue. Results suggest that ankle CG increased and maintained skin temperature during recovery, decreased twitch half-relaxation times, and reduced GRF from a 50-cm drop height. However, ankle CG did not improve other performance measures, aid in recovery, or affect blood lactate clearance.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".