MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586358942 · doi:10.1519/jsc.0000000000001840

Repetition Performance and Blood Lactate Responses Adopting Different Recovery Periods Between Training Sessions in Trained Men

2017· article· en· W2586358942 on OpenAlexaff
Humberto Miranda, Marianna F. Maia, Gabriel Andrade Paz, João Antônio Almeida Alves de Souza, Roberto Simão, Déborah de Araújo Farias, Jeffrey M. Willardson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsHumber Polytechnic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBench pressBlood lactateResistance trainingLeg pressPsychologyMedicinePhysical therapyInternal medicineHeart rateBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Miranda, H, Maia, MF, Paz, GA, de Souza, JAAA, Simão, R, Farias, DA, and Willardson, JM. Repetition performance and blood lactate responses adopting different recovery periods between training sessions in trained men. J Strength Cond Res 32(12): 3340-3347, 2018-The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of different recovery periods (24, 48, and 72 hours) between repeated resistance training (RT) sessions for the upper-body muscles on repetition performance and blood lactate responses in trained men. Sixteen recreationally trained men (age: 26.1 ± 3.1 years; height: 179 ± 4.5 cm; body mass: 82.6 ± 4.0 kg, 4.5 ± 2.2 years of RT experience) participated in this study. Eight repetition maximum (8RM) loads were determined for the bench press (BP), 30° incline bench press (BP30), and 45° incline bench press (BP45) exercises. To assess the effects of different recovery periods between repeated training sessions, 3 protocols were performed in randomized order, including 24 hours (P24), 48 hours (P48), and 72 hours (P72). Each RT session consisted of performing 4 repetition maximum sets of the BP, BP30, and BP45 with 8RM loads and 2-minute rest intervals between sets. Blood lactate levels were measured presession (PRE), immediately postsession (POST), 3 minutes postsession (P3), and 5 minutes postsession (P5). For the P24 protocol, significant decreases in repetition performance were found between sessions for the BP, BP30, and BP45 exercises, respectively. When considering session 2 only, the total work (repetition × sets) was significantly higher under P48 and P72 compared with P24 for the BP30 and BP45 exercises. Blood lactate levels (i.e., POST, P3, and P5) significantly increased for session 2 under the P24 compared with the P48 and P72 protocols, respectively. Therefore, coaches and practitioners who need to accomplish a higher training volume for the upper-body muscles should adopt recovery periods longer than 24 hours between sessions that train the same or similar muscle groups.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.878

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Strength and Conditioning ResearchSame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207