MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

METABOLIC DEMAND OF LEG DRIVE IN OUTRIGGER CANOE PADDLERS

2002· article· en· W2057682348 on OpenAlexaff
J M. LaBreche, Donald C. McKenzie

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreadmillMedicineOutriggerLeg muscleVO2 maxInternal medicineBicycle ergometerPhysical therapyCardiologyEndocrinologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationHeart rateBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leg drive is encouraged in paddling to increase power per stroke. When involving additional muscle mass during exercise, it can be expected that the metabolic demand would also increase. PURPOSE: to investigate the metabolic demand of paddling with and without leg drive compared to whole-body exercise in trained and untrained individuals. METHODS: Treadmill (TM) and paddling ergometer with leg drive (PEL) and with no leg drive (PENL) incremental testing to fatigue was recorded in 22 healthy male subjects. Eleven experienced outrigger canoeists (P) (age = 35.64 ± 5.66 yrs, ht = 179.16 ± 3.81 cm, wt = 84.39 ± 9.23 kg) and eleven matched controls (C) (age = 36.45 ± 5.66 yrs, ht = 178.85 ± 4.07 cm, wt = 83.95 ± 8.32 kg) participated. Metabolic variables were monitored using a portable metabolic system. RESULTS: Oxygen consumption of the paddlers was significantly increased with the addition of leg drive during maximal exercise on the paddling ergometer (PEL = 3.88 ± 0.53, PENL = 3.23 ± 0.47 L/min) (p < 0.01). Paddlers also attained a higher percentage (14.58% higher than controls) of treadmill VO2max when using leg drive. Furthermore, the paddling group was able to reach higher percentages of treadmill VO2max during paddling tests both with legs (P = 85.05 ± 7.82 vs. C = 67.52 ± 4.58) and without legs (P = 70.47 ± 5.47 vs. C = 61.79 ± 4.16) when compared to the control group (p < 0.01). Maximal minute ventilation (VE) was not significantly different between tests for the paddlers (TM = 149.97 ± 13.90, PEL = 151.91 ± 17.30, PENL = 141.41 ± 20.60 L/min). However, controls attained a significantly higher VEmax during TM (131.43 ± 16.99 L/min) when compared to PEL (110.18 ± 15.20 L/min) and PENL (104.22 ± 14.08 L/min) (p < 0.01). With leg drive (PEL) paddlers were able to achieve similar maximal heart rate (HR) values to the TM, while HRmax for PENL was significantly lower (TM = 183.36 ± 11.38, PEL = 175.73 ± 9.39, PENL = 171.27 ± 11.46 bpm) (p < 0.01). Treadmill HRmax (187.64 ± 12.68 bpm) in controls was significantly higher than both PEL (172.36 ± 13.34 bpm and PENL (73.82 ± 11.12 bpm) (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that leg drive does significantly contribute to the metabolic demand of paddling in outrigger canoeists. Supported by the BC Sports Medicine Research Foundation

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicCardiovascular and exercise physiology→French-language works237,207→