The repeated bout effect of traditional resistance exercises on running performance across 3 bouts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the repeated bout effect of 3 typical lower body resistance-training sessions on maximal and submaximal effort running performance. Twelve resistance-untrained men (age, 24 ± 4 years; height, 1.81 ± 0.10 m; body mass, 79.3 ± 10.9 kg; peak oxygen uptake, 48.2 ± 6.5 mL·kg −1 ·min −1 ; 6-repetition maximum squat, 71.7 ± 12.2 kg) undertook 3 bouts of resistance-training sessions at 6-repetitions maximum. Countermovement jump (CMJ), lower-body range of motion (ROM), muscle soreness, and creatine kinase (CK) were examined prior to and immediately, 24 h (T24), and 48 h (T48) after each resistance-training bout. Submaximal (i.e., below anaerobic threshold (AT)) and maximal (i.e., above AT) running performances were also conducted at T24 and T48. Most indirect muscle damage markers (i.e., CMJ, ROM, and muscle soreness) and submaximal running performance were significantly improved (P < 0.05; 1.9%) following the third resistance-training bout compared with the second bout. Whilst maximal running performance was also improved following the third bout (P < 0.05; 9.8%) compared with other bouts, the measures were still reduced by 12%–20% versus baseline. However, the increase in CK was attenuated following the second bout (P < 0.05) with no further protection following the third bout (P > 0.05). In conclusion, the initial bout induced the greatest change in CK; however, at least 2 bouts were required to produce protective effects on other indirect muscle damage markers and submaximal running performance measures. This suggests that submaximal running sessions should be avoided for at least 48 h after resistance training until the third bout, although a greater recovery period may be required for maximal running sessions.
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 | 0.001 | 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".