Physiological and perceptual responses to incremental exercise testing in healthy men: effect of exercise test modality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a randomized cross-over study of 15 healthy men aged 20-30 years, we compared physiological and perceptual responses during treadmill and cycle exercise test protocols matched for increments in work rate - the source of increased locomotor muscle metabolic and contractile demands. The rates of O2 consumption and CO2 production were higher at the peak of treadmill versus cycle testing (p ≤ 0.05). Nevertheless, work rate, minute ventilation, tidal volume (VT), breathing frequency (fR), inspiratory capacity (IC), inspiratory reserve volume (IRV), tidal esophageal (Pes,tidal) and transdiaphragmatic pressure swings (Pdi,tidal), peak expiratory gastric pressures (Pga,peak), the root mean square of the diaphragm electromyogram (EMGdi,rms) expressed as a percentage of maximum EMGdi,rms (EMGdi,rms%max), and dyspnea ratings were similar at the peak of treadmill versus cycle testing (p > 0.05). Ratings of leg discomfort were higher at the peak of cycle versus treadmill exercise (p ≤ 0.05), even though peak O2 consumption was lower during cycling. Oxygen consumption, CO2 production, minute ventilation, fR, Pes,tidal, Pdi,tidal and Pga,peak were higher (p ≤ 0.05), while VT, IC, IRV, EMGdi,rms%max, and ratings of dyspnea and leg discomfort were similar (p > 0.05) at all or most submaximal work rates during treadmill versus cycle exercise. Our findings highlight important differences (and similarities) in physiological and perceptual responses at maximal and submaximal work rates during incremental treadmill and cycle exercise testing protocols. The lack of effect of exercise test modality on peak work rate advocates for the use of this readily available parameter to optimize training intensity determination, regardless of exercise training mode.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".