Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dear Editor-in-Chief: With regard to Dr. Moraska's contention that our work (3) does not have external validity: we are in complete agreement that massage applied 15 min after a 10-km race is irrelevant for lactate clearance. This is why we state in the introduction that the only situation where massage might be relevant in terms of "lactic acid" removal is "in athletic events that involve intermittent bursts at a high power output where substantial lactic acid production would occur and rapid recovery is required." This is the context in which our study has external validity. We would categorically disagree with Dr. Moraska if his view was that massage could not be implemented in certain important muscle groups "between shifts" in basketball or football, for example, if the goal was to enhance "lactic acid" removal. Whether massage is not applied as such is not because it cannot be but because it has not been considered. This is where our issue with the "myth" of massage efficacy for "lactic acid" removal comes in; namely, the contention that it elevates muscle blood flow. Under resting conditions, it has already been established that massage does not enhance limb blood flow (2), but nothing is known about after exercise where blood flow is still elevated. With regard to Dr. Moraska's contention that the reported group differences are due to incorrect application of statistics: he is in error when he states the 30-s postischemic handgrip (IHG) data are "before intervention" and therefore the "values should be equal between groups" such that "not accounting for baseline differences misrepresents the intervention effect." The 30-s postexercise data are not before intervention. In the Methods sections, "Post-IHG active recovery and massage (p. 1063)," we state "After 2 min of IHG, the subject lay quietly with the forearm at rest for 30 s, at which time active recovery/forearm massage began." In the Methods section, "Post-IHG data acquisition (p. 1064)," we state "…(data) were obtained over an approximately 20-s period every minute starting at 30 s post-IHG..." The reduced blood flow in the massage and active recovery at 30 s after IHG is therefore due to the well-documented impairment effect of mechanical compression and muscle contraction. Indeed, the groups were identical at this time point in terms of arteriovenous [lactate] difference and in terms of blood pressure for massage and passive recovery. (Of course, active recovery would have a higher blood pressure at this time since contractions have begun and there is an immediate effect on arterial blood pressure with forearm contractions (1).) In conclusion, no study has investigated the efficacy of massage in removing "lactic acid" from exercised muscle, and our study examined the immediate postexercise condition because this is the only time that such efficacy might be relevant. Our statistical analysis and data interpretation was appropriately based on intervention differences from control at 30 s after exercise and beyond. Dr. Moraska's inference of "questionable results interpretation" is unfortunate, as it is based on his error regarding the experimental conditions at the 30-s postexercise time point. Michael E. Tschakovsky, PhD E. Victoria Wiltshire, MSc School of Kinesiology and Health Studies Queen's University Kingston, Ontario, Canada
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 | 0.003 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.170 | 0.100 |
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".