MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The Influence Of 6-weeks Resistance Training On Post-activation Performance Enhancement

2023· article· en· W4387061992 on OpenAlexaff
Jun Song, Zachary W. Bell, Robert W. Spitz, Vickie Wong, Yujiro Yamada, Ryo Kataoka, Takashi Abe, Jeremy P. Loenneke

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResistance trainingPsychologyPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) is a phenomenon whereby strength is acutely increased following a conditioning stimulus. Previous research has suggested that PAPE is higher in resistance trained individuals. However, this has largely been determined from cross sectional studies, and only one study found a greater PAPE response following lower body resistance training. Thus, it was of interest to determine if resistance training among those who were initially untrained would enhance the PAPE responses. PURPOSE: To determine if PAPE is augmented following six weeks of resistance training for those who were originally untrained. METHODS: PAPE was assessed before and after six weeks of elbow flexion training (3 sessions per week). Non-resistance trained participants (66 women, 50 men) were randomized into one of three training groups. Group 1 only trained their dominant arm, performing a one-repetition maximum (1RM) test (five attempts maximum), followed by 4 sets of 8-12RM; Group 2 completed the same exercise as Group 1 on the dominant arm followed by 4 sets of 30-40RM on the non-dominant arm; and Group 3 only trained their non-dominant arm with 4 sets of 30-40RM. The variable of interest was the change in isokinetic strength (PAPE) in the dominant arm. There were two hypotheses: H1: the change is not different among groups or H2: the change is greater in Group 1 and 2 compared to Group 3. Hypotheses were tested using Bayes Factors for Informative Hypotheses. RESULTS: PAPE was evident before training [0.59 (0.13, 1.06) Nm]. The change in PAPE following training the intervention was not different among the three groups, which is supported by the posterior probability favoring H1 (0.81) indicating that the mean changes of Group 1 (0.14 Nm), Group 2 (-0.72 Nm), and Group 3 were not different from each other (-0.46 Nm). CONCLUSION: Six weeks elbow flexion training did not produce any changes in PAPE for any of the groups. This is in contrast to previous data which suggested that trained individuals have greater PAPE than those who are untrained. Support for this idea largely comes from cross-sectional work with only one other study investigating this change longitudinally. The discrepancy between the current study and previous work may be due to differences in exercise protocols and/or muscle groups trained.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.272 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicSports Performance and Training→French-language works237,207→