Time course of recovery is similar for the back squat, bench press, and deadlift in well-trained males
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the time course of recovery following resistance exercise sessions in the back squat, bench press, and deadlift. Twelve well-trained males (age: 24.5 ± 3.8 years, body mass: 84.01 ± 15.44 kg, training age: 7.1 ± 4.2 years) performed 4 sets to failure at 80% of a 1-repetition maximum (1RM) on the squat, bench press, and deadlift in successive weeks. The bench press was always performed in week 2 with the squat and deadlift order counterbalanced between weeks 1 and 3. Indirect muscle damage and performance fatigue was assessed immediately before and after exercise and at 24 h, 48 h, 72 h, and 96 h postexercise. Outcome measures included limb swelling, joint range of motion, delayed onset muscle soreness, average concentric velocity (ACV) at 70% of 1RM, creatine kinase, lactate dehydrogenase, and cell-free DNA (cfDNA). Most measures demonstrated a main time effect (p < 0.05) within conditions; however, no between condition (p > 0.05) differences existed. ACV decreased in the squat condition for up to 72 h (p = 0.02, –8.61%) and in the bench press (p < 0.01, –26.69%) immediately postexercise but did not decline during the deadlift condition (p > 0.05). There was a main time effect for increased cfDNA in the squat (p < 0.01) and bench press (p < 0.05), but not the deadlift (p = 0.153). Further, immediately postexercise increases in cfDNA were directly related (p < 0.05) to changes in ACV in all 3 conditions. These results suggest that the deadlift does not result in greater muscle damage and recovery time than the squat and bench press following volume-type training in well-trained men. Further, acute changes in cfDNA may predict performance during the recovery period.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".