MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W286708135

HIGH POWER RESISTANCE EXERCISE OVER-REACHING CAN BE MONITORED WITH A TRAINING QUESTIONNAIRE

2014· article· en· W286708135 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
AC Fry, AJ Sterczala, Lzf Chiu, BK Schilling, LW Weiss

Bibliographic record

VenueTopSCHOLAR (Western Kentucky University) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResistance trainingTraining (meteorology)Power (physics)Physical therapyResistance (ecology)PsychologyMedicineGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.523
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.200 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTopSCHOLAR (Western Kentucky University)Same topicAdvanced Battery Technologies ResearchFrench-language works237,207