Cuff width does not affect discomfort ratings immediately following isometric handgrip exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Previous work has found that wide cuffs produce greater discomfort with elbow flexion exercise than narrower cuffs. It is our hypothesis that this is due to the balling up of the biceps underneath the cuff that is more pronounced with a wider cuff. One method to test this is through an upper body exercise where there is no contraction of the biceps. Purpose To investigate the effects of cuff width on discomfort following isometric handgrip exercise. Methods One hundred participants completed this experiment. In a randomized order, the participants performed four sets of two-minute isometric handgrip contractions with thirty seconds of rest at thirty percent of their maximal voluntary contraction with a 5 and 12 cm cuff inflated to 40% of arterial occlusion pressure. Discomfort ratings (0–100) were given after the fourth set of exercise. Average force was recorded for all four sets. Results There was no difference in discomfort (BF 10 = 0.158) [median difference (95% credible interval) −0.997 (−3.360, 1.283) arbitrary units], or in average force (BF 10 = 0.132) [median difference (95% credible interval) 0.08 (−0.199, 0.372) kilograms], between cuff conditions. There did not appear to be a greater preference for either cuff. Forty people preferred the narrow cuff (BF 10 = 0.325), forty people preferred the wide cuff (BF 10 = 0.325), and twenty people had no preference (BF 10 = 7.719). Conclusion Cuff width does not appear to influence discomfort or the average force produced. This provides support for our hypothesis that the shape of the muscle may interact with wider cuff sizes, leading to greater discomfort.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".