MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Time Course of Recovery Following Crossfit® Karen Benchmark Workout in Trained Men

2021· preprint· en· W3196386415 on OpenAlexaff
Ramires Alsamir Tibana, Ivo Vieira de Sousa Neto, Nuno Manuel Frade de Sousa, Arthur M. Zecchin-Oliveira, Frederico Ribeiro Neto, João Henrique Falk Neto

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSquatMedicineCreatine kinasePhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study describes the acute and delayed time course of recovery following the CrossFit® Benchmark Workout Karen. Eight trained men (28.4±6.4 years; 1RM back squat 139.1±26.0 kg) undertook the Karen protocol. The protocol consists of 150 Wall Balls, aiming to hit a target 3 meters high. Countermovement jump height (CMJ), creatine kinase (CK), and perceived recovery status scale (PRS) (general, lower and upper limbs) were assessed pre, post-0h, 24h, 48h and 72h after the session. The CK concentration 24h after was higher than pre-exercise (338.4 U/L vs. 143.3 U/L; effect size: 0.74; p≤0.05). At 48h and 72h following exercise, CK concentration had returned to baseline levels. The PRS general and of the lower limbs were lower in the 24-hours post-exercise compared to pre-exercise (PRS general: 4.7 ±1.5 and 7.9 ±1.7 mmol/L; and PRS of the lower limbs: 4.0 ±2.5 and 7.9 ±0.8, respectively). The PRS general, lower, and upper limbs were reduced at 48-post exercise compared to 72-hours post-exercise scores. Our findings provide insights into the fatigue profile and recovery in acute CrossFit® and can be useful to coaches effectively design the daily session.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.org→Same topicSports Performance and Training→French-language works237,207→