EFFECTS OF NORMOXIC NITROUS OXIDE AND HYPERTHERMIA ON PERFORMANCE DURING A WINGATE TEST
Bibliographic record
Abstract
EFFECTS OF NORMOXIC NITROUS OXIDE AND HYPERTHERMIA ON PERFORMANCE DURING A WINGATE TEST A.Yogev, A. Hall, O. Jay and M.D. White. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada It was hypothesized that normoxic 30% nitrous oxide gas and passively-induced hyperthermia would increase performance during short duration, high intensity exercise. Ten college age males (24.0 ± 1.9 y; mean ± SE), of normal physique (BMI, 23.7 ± 2.2 kg • m-2), performed 4 separate 30 s Wingate tests on an electrically braked, seated, cycle ergometer. Mean power, peak power, time to peak power and rate of fatigue were assessed in 2 way experimental design with factors of Thermal State (normothermia or hyperthermia) and Gas Type (Air or 30% normoxic nitrous oxide (N2O)). Prior to the 2 hyperthermic Wingate tests the TES was elevated to ~38.5ºC in a 40ºC bath and without prewarming TES remained at ~37.1ºC for the 2 normothermic Wingate tests. The main results indicated a significant interaction between Gas Type and Thermal State for mean power(F=10.9, P = 0.01). The mean powerduring the normothermic AIR and hyperthermic AIR condition exercise was similar at ~560 watts (W) and it was decreased to 522 ± 145 W in the normothermic N2O condition relative to that of 624 ± 129 W in hyperthermic N2O condition. After accounting for hyperthermia-induced changes, the changes in mean powerin this interaction was explained by a ~18% increase in mean power between the normothermic N2O to the hyperthermic N2O exercise condition. In conclusion, for normoxic nitrous oxide breathing, mean power output during hyperthermia is significantly increased relative to that during normothermia. Supported by NSERC and CFIF
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".