Time Course for Recovery of Peak Aerobic Power After Blood Donation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peak aerobic power (VO2peak) is decreased after blood donation, but the time course for full recovery is unknown. We measured VO2peak and exercise time to fatigue before and weekly for 4 weeks after 450-ml blood donation at a blood donor clinic, to determine the time course of recovery. Twelve moderately active individuals (2 women, 10 men; 24.3 ± 5.2 years) of average aerobic fitness (based on their VO2peak relative to normative values) completed VO2peak exercise tests before donation, the day after donation, and at weekly intervals for 4 weeks after donation. VO2peak was determined by an incremental exercise test on a cycle ergometer. At baseline, mean absolute and relative VO2peak values were 4.06 ± 0.92 L·min(-1) and 46.6 ± 7.0 ml·kg(-1)·min(-1), respectively. VO2peak was significantly decreased on day 1 (3.85 ± 0.89 L·min(-1); 44.0 ± 6.5 ml·kg(-1)·min(-1)) and during week 2 (3.91 ± 0.97 L·min(-1); 44.5 ± 7.2 ml·kg(-1)·min(-1)) after blood donation (p < 0.05), and recovered at week 3 after donation. Time to fatigue and peak heart rate were not significantly affected by blood donation. We conclude that blood donation causes a significant decrease in VO2peak for between 2 and 3 weeks. The practical application of this study is that aerobic power in people of average fitness will be decreased, up to 3 weeks after donating blood. Despite this, there is no effect of blood donation on performance as measured by time to fatigue during an incremental test on a cycle ergometer.
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) | 0.000 | 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".