The effects of aerobic exercise on strength performance under varying durations of recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine if the type and intensity of aerobic training affects the amount of work that can be performed in a subsequent strength training session after recovery periods of 4, 8, and 24 hours. Sixteen male subjects actively involved in sports (hockey, rowing, soccer, basketball, rugby) participated in the study and were divided into two groups, MAX (8) and SUB (8). Aerobic training consisted of either six, 3-minute intervals at 85-100% power output at cycle V02 max (POCMAP) separated by 3-minute recovery intervals (MAX) or 36 minutes of continuous aerobic training at approximately 70% POCMAP (SUB). Each participant performed 4 sets of both bench press and leg press at approximately 75% lRM on 4 different occasions. Three occasions were preceded by aerobic training with recovery periods of 4, 8, or 24 hours, while the fourth was used as a control. Total repetitions in leg press were affected by length of recovery following aerobic training while total repetitions in bench press were unaffected. Both the 4 and 8-hour recovery conditions resulted in significantly fewer total leg press repetitions than both the control and 24-hour recovery conditions. There was no difference between both the control and 24-hour conditions. No main effect was shown with respect to the type of aerobic training. It was concluded that regardless of the type, when aerobic training precedes strength training, the volume of work that can be performed is diminished for up to 8 hours. This impairment appears to be localized to the muscle groups involved in the aerobic training.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".