Bibliographic record
Abstract
College of Kinesiology Research Theme: Human Performance Introduction: Dry cupping therapy has gained popularity in athletic settings as a recovery modality, yet empirical evidence supporting its effectiveness remains limited. The practice involves using suction to create negative pressure on the skin, which is theorized to promote blood flow and tissue recovery. Purpose: To determine whether post-exercise dry cupping therapy would improve recovery of muscle strength, reduce muscle soreness, and limit swelling compared to a sham control arm. Methods: Ten resistance-trained adults (aged 20-22) participated in a randomized, within-subject, blinded trial. Participants performed a biceps-focused muscle-damaging exercise. One arm received dry cupping therapy post-exercise, while the opposite arm received a sham cupping treatment (cups applied with no suction). Assessments were conducted at six time points: pre-exercise, post-exercise, post-cupping, and 24, 48, and 72 hours post-exercise. Outcomes included muscle strength (isometric torque via Biodex), muscle thickness (ultrasound), and soreness (Visual Analog Scale). Differences were analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA to assess arm × time interactions and time main effects. Results: There were no significant arm × time interactions for any outcome, indicating similar recovery patterns between cupped and control arms. Significant time main effects were observed for all outcomes (p < 0.01). Muscle strength decreased post-exercise and remained below baseline at 24, 48, and 72 hours (p < 0.05). Muscle thickness increased post-exercise and remained elevated at 24 and 48 hours before returning to baseline by 72 hours (p < 0.05). Muscle soreness increased post-exercise and remained elevated at all follow-up time points (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Dry cupping therapy applied after resistance exercise did not significantly improve recovery of strength, soreness, or swelling compared to the control, who received sham treatment. These findings suggest that cupping may not provide additional recovery benefits beyond placebo.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".