0792 SLEEP OPTIMIZATION IMPROVES MOOD DIFFERENTLY BETWEEN CANADIAN NATIONAL TEAM CURLERS AND ROWERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Elite athletes are at-risk for insufficient sleep, but research on sleep interventions in this population is limited. The current study utilized three different sleep optimization interventions with curlers and female heavyweight rowers to see if optimal sleep would affect mood states differently. N=15 Canadian National Team curlers (mean age 30.7 ± 4.5; 8 females) and 11 Canadian Women’s heavy-weight National Team rowers (mean age 26.0 ± 3.1) completed the Profile of Mood States at two time points during their competitive season; once before the sleep interventions (baseline; BL), and once after the 3.5-week sleep intervention (SI) phase. The sleep interventions consisted of increasing nighttime sleep, napping, and reducing the negative effects of technology use by putting away electronic devices an hour before bedtime. All interventions were the same between sports except the rowers additionally wore blue-blocking glasses in the two hours before bedtime. Data were analyzed with independent samples t-tests to compare differences in POMS sub-scales of tension-anxiety, depression, fatigue, vigor, and total scores between both sports at baseline. Paired sample t-tests by sport were used to compare changes in the sub-scales and total mood scores between baseline and post-intervention. At BL, the rowers had higher levels of tension-anxiety (t24=2.51, p=0.019), fatigue (t24=2.90, p=0.008), depression (t24=2.18, p=0.039), and total mood symptoms (t24=2.14, p=0.043) when compared to the curlers. The rowers reduced depression symptoms after the SI phase (t10=2.84, p = 0.018). The curlers reduced fatigue (t14=2.63, p=0.020), increased vigor (t14=2.97, p=0.010), and reduced total mood symptoms (t14=2.70, p=0.017) after the SI phase. In this sample of elite athletes from two different National Team sports, the rowers had poorer mood symptoms at BL and did not improve mood states as much as the curlers after the SI phase. It is likely that stress related to the preparations for the Rio 2016 Summer Olympics hindered the effectiveness of the interventions in the rowers. Further research is needed to assess the interventions across the Olympic quadrennial preparation cycle and to determine the optimal implementation strategy for different teams and athletes. Own the Podium and Mitacs Accelerate.
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 | 0.000 | 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".