HIGH POWER RESISTANCE EXERCISE OVER-REACHING CAN BE MONITORED WITH A TRAINING QUESTIONNAIRE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Andrew C. Fry1, Mary D. Fry1, Adam J. Sterczala1, Loren Z.F. Chiu2, Brian K. Schilling3 & Lawrence W. Weiss3. 1University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, 2University of Alberta, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 3University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee Overtraining resulting in long-term performance decrements due to high intensity resistance exercise is associated with changes in daily training questionnaires (Fry et al. 1994, 2006). A lesser form of overtraining that can be part of a planned training program is called over-reaching (OR) and results in performance decrements lasting just a few days to a few weeks. PURPOSE: To determine if a daily training questionnaire can determine the onset of over-reaching due to high power resistance exercise. METHODS: As part of a larger study on dietary supplementation, weight trained males (n=17; X±SD; age=22.8±3.3 yrs) were divided into OR+supplement (SUP; n=8), OR+placebo (PL; n=3), or control (CON; n=6) groups. Both OR groups performed 15 training sessions over 7.5 days, performing 10 x 5 speed squats at 70% BW+1 repetition maximum (RM) each session. Each training and testing session included a questionnaire (Fry et al. 2000) to determine perceptions of soreness, joint discomfort, and motivation to exercise. An abridged version of the Profile of Mood States (POMS) survey instrument was also administered (Myers & Whelan 1998), as well as a questionnaire to determine sleep patterns and other training related variables. RESULTS: Vol.-load (reps x wgt) for the OR groups was >28-fold greater than for CON during the OR phase (both OR groups > 146.103 kg; Con=5.1.103 kg). Overreaching occurred for both SUP & PL groups as indicated by lower bar velocity at 70% 1 RM at post OR, but was recovered after 1 week. Both OR groups decreased perceptions of recovery >45% during the 15 training sessions (p22% less desire to train during the first 8 training sessions compared to the S group (p.05). No measure from the abridged POMS sig. changed (p>.05). CONCLUSIONS: Use of a previously validated overtraining questionnaire appears to be valid for monitoring resistance exercise overreaching as well. Supported by a grant from Nutricia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".