O2 Uptake Kinetics During Knee Extension And Leg Cycling Exercise In The Moderate-intensity Domain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the transition to the same relative intensity of exercise in the moderate-intensity domain the phase II time constant for O2 uptake (tVO2) and the VO2 gain (DVO2/DWR) tend to be greater with knee-extension (KE) than with leg cycling exercise (CE), however, the response at the same absolute work rate (WR) has not been established. PURPOSE: To examine the adaptation of pulmonary VO2 during the transition to the same relative and same absolute WRs in the moderate-intensity domain. METHODS: Four younger subjects completed an incremental exercise test to volitional fatigue during both alternate-leg KE and CE to estimate lactate threshold (θL) and peak VO2. Subjects then completed four step transitions in WR from light- to a moderate-intensity exercise corresponding to 90% θL (KErel, CErel), as well as four step transitions during CE from light-intensity to an absolute WR equal to that used during KErel (CEabs). A cadence of 50 rpm was maintained throughout all testing with KE and CE. VO2 was measured breath-by-breath using a volume turbine and mass spectrometer. The phase II VO2 response was modeled using a monoexponential function and non-linear regression techniques. RESULTS: The tVO2 was greater (p<0.05) in KErel (28 (7) s; mean (± SD)) than in CErel (15 (2) s) and in CEabs (16 (4) s) The VO2 gain was greater (p<0.05) in KErel (15.3 (2.?) ml · min-1 · W-1) than in CErel (8.5 (3.1) ml · min-1 · W-1), but not different from that found in CEabs (11.5 (6.6) ml · min-1 · W-1). CONCLUSION: The tendency for a greater tVO2 and VO2 gain during the transition to the same relative and same absolute intensity of exercise using KE compared to CE may be related to biomechanical differences or to the different muscle fibres or muscle groups recruited during the exercise transition within each modality. Supported by NSERC
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) | 0.001 | 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".