Day-to-day variability in cardiorespiratory responses to hypoxic cycle exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Repeatedly performing exercise in hypoxia could elicit an independent training response and become an unintended co-intervention. The primary purposes of this study were to determine if hypoxic exercise responses changed across repeated testing and to assess the day-to-day variability of commonly used measures of cardiorespiratory and metabolic responses to hypoxic exercise. Healthy young males (aged 23 ± 2 years) with a maximal O2 consumption of 50.7 ± 4.7 mL·kg(-1)·min(-1) performed 5 trials (H1 to H5) over a 2-week period in hypoxia (fraction of inspired oxygen = 0.13). Participants completed 3-min stages at 20%, 40%, 60%, and 10% of individual peak power. With increasing cycle exercise intensity there were increases in minute ventilation, O2 consumption, CO2 production, respiratory exchange ratio, heart rate (HR), blood lactate concentration, and ratings of perceived exertion for legs and respiratory system along with a reduction in oxyhaemoglobin saturation (%SpO2) (all p < 0.001). There were no systematic changes from H1 to H5 (p > 0.05). Most measures were highly repeatable across testing sessions with the coefficient of variation (CV) averaging ≤10% of the mean value in all variables except O2 consumption (17%), CO2 production (11%) and blood lactate concentration (17%). For HR and %SpO2 the CV was <5%. The exercise protocol did not elicit a training response when repeated 5 times during a 2-week period and the variability of exercise responses was low. We conclude that this protocol allows detection of small changes in cardiorespiratory responses to hypoxic exercise that might occur during exposure to hypoxia.
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".