Physiological Effects of Increasing Battling Rope Weight During 6 weeks of High Intensity Interval Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acute battling rope (BR) high intensity interval training (HIIT) increases oxygen consumption, and 4 weeks of BR HIIT has reported significant increases in female upper body maximal oxygen consumption (MVO2), and skeletal muscle endurance. PURPOSE: To determine if increasing BR weight during 6 wks of HIIT increases upper body MVO2 and upper body skeletal muscle strength, endurance and power. METHODS: 18 recreationally active men and 15 women (23±2y) performed 10 BR HIIT sets, 30s work: 60s rest, 3x/week, for 6 wks. For the first 3 weeks, women used 40 ft, 1.5”, 20lb BR and men used 50 ft, 1.5”, 25lb BR, after which BR weight was increased by 10lb using a heavier rope for another 3 wks in both groups. Upper body MVO2 (arm ergometer) and skeletal muscle performance (isometric shoulder [shld] flexion/extension, dynamic shoulder power, maximum sit-ups and push-ups) was assessed at baseline, and after 3 and 6 wks. RESULTS: During BR HIIT male and female heart rates were >85% of predicted maximums, and peak HIIT blood lactates (BLa) reached 10.79 and 8.33 mmol/L, respectively. See table below for MVO2 and skeletal muscle performance adaptations after 3 and 6 wks of BR HIIT.Table: No title available.CONCLUSION: 3 wks of BR HIIT can significantly increase upper body MVO2 and skeletal muscle strength, endurance and power in male and female university students. Increasing BR weight plus 3 more wks of BR HIIT produced additional significant improvements in MVO2 and skeletal muscle performance, suggesting progressive overload training principles can be applied to BR training.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".