Impact of early and late morning supervised blood flow restriction training on body composition and skeletal muscle performance in older inactive adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives To investigate the impact of a supervised blood-flow restriction (BFR) training program performed at different times of the morning on body composition and muscle performance in older, inactive adults. Methods A single-arm intervention of supervised BFR resistance training was performed three times per week for six weeks. Participants (n=24; aged 65+ years) were categorized into early morning (n=13; 05:00–08:59) or late morning (n=11; 09:00–12:00) groups. Primary outcomes were changes in body composition, total work, average peak power, average peak torque, muscle strength, and physical function. Results Mixed model analysis of variance revealed a significant within-subject effect of time for all strength measures (p ranging from 0.017 to <0.001) and some physical function measures including the 30 s chair stand test, 30 s bicep curl test, and grip strength (p ranging from 0.015 to <0.001). No between-group or time by group interaction effect was observed for all outcomes. Conclusions This study showed that only six weeks of BFR training, performed at different time of the morning, did not enhance muscle mass and performance, but provided similar changes in muscle strength and some physical function tests in older adults.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".