Effects of Taper on Salivary Cortisol in Trained Cyclists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1020 Physiological and performance improvements are documented as a result of tapering. Simple methods to monitor these changes are important for athletic competition, and recently, salivary cortisol (C) has been used to monitor recovery from the physiological stress imposed by exercise training (Neary et al. 2002; J Sci Med Sport, 5:108–114). PURPOSE: To examine the effects of different taper protocols on salivary C after intensive endurance training. METHODS: Following high intensity (85%VO2max) training 4d×wk−1 × 3 weeks, eleven male cyclists (VO2max = 67.9 ± 9.4 mL×kg−1×min−1) were randomly assigned to (and repeated) three tapers in which baseline training volume was reduced by 30% (T30, n = 5), 50% (T50, n = 6), 80% (T80, n = 6) with exercise intensity maintained. Resting salivary C was collected (same time of day) and analysed (RIA) pre- and post-taper and on Day 2 (D2) and 4 (D4) of the taper. Performance was measured with a simulated 20 km time trial (20TT). RESULTS: The results showed that significant (P≤0.05) reductions in salivary C were found pre- to post-taper for the T50 (0.40 to 0.20 μg/dl) and T80 (0.41 to 0.27 μg/dl) groups, but not for T30 (0.35 to 0.39 μg/dl). Post-taper salivary C values were also different between the T50 and T80 groups vs. T30. Individual plots revealed differences in salivary C between subjects, and their response to the different tapers. No systematic relationship (r = 0.16 − 0.76) was observed between the changes in performance (20TT) vs. salivary C. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that: (1) different taper protocols will elicit a different physiological response in salivary C, with the minimum reduction in training volume (T30) having the highest salivary C levels post-taper, (2) the lowto- moderate correlations with the 20TT reflect the individualized nature of salivary C in response to taper, and (3) salivary C can be used to monitor recovery from the physiological stress imposed by exercise training during the taper phase. Support by Sport Canada; VP Research, UNB.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".