Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33790372›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Evaluation of the repeatability and reliability of the cross-training specific Fight Gone Bad workout and its relation to aerobic fitness.

Krzysztof Durkalec-Michalski, Emilia E Zawieja, Bogna E Zawieja, Tomasz Podgórski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. DoesNutrients · 2024
    Trial
  5. The effect of 12-week high-doseFrontiers in immunology · 2024
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Krzysztof Durkalec-Michalski *Department of Sports Dietetics, Poznan University of Physical Education, 61-871, Poznan, Poland. durkalec-michalski@awf.poznan.pl.ORCID 0000-0002-5041-2981
Emilia E Zawieja *Department of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, Poznan University of Life Sciences, 60-624, Poznan, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-9030-1805
Bogna E ZawiejaDepartment of Mathematical and Statistical Methods, Poznan University of Life Sciences, 60-637, Poznan, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-3137-3478
Tomasz PodgórskiDepartment of Physiology and Biochemistry, Poznan University of Physical Education, 61-871, Poznan, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-0745-4606

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cross-training is a high-intensity functional training (HIFT) with multiple workout modalities. Despite the increasing number of studies in HIFT, there is still no validated test to measure its specific performance. It would also be advisable to determine whether selected cross-training workouts can implement a stimulus corresponding to maximize aerobic work. For these reasons, the purpose of our study was to evaluate the repeatability and reliability of Fight Gone Bad (FGB) workout and to assess its relationship with aerobic fitness. Twenty-one cross-training participants (9 females) finished the study protocol which included three two-day measurement sessions separated by 10 days. During each session, participants had their body composition measured, and they performed two exercise tests. The first test was an incremental cycling test to measure aerobic fitness, and the second was a cross-training specific FGB workout performed the next day. Reliability and repeatability were calculated from the three measurements. The total FGB Score (FGB

Identifiers

PMID33790372
PMCPMC8012697

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.