RPE during Prolonged Cycling with and without Carbohydrate Ingestion in Boys and Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the effect of prolonged cycling on ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) in boys and men and whether carbohydrate (CHO) ingestion would lower RPE during exercise. METHODS: Ten boys (9-10 yr) and 10 men (20-25 yr) cycled for 60 min at approximately 70% VO2peak on two occasions. In a double-blind, counterbalanced design, a total volume of 24 mL.kg(-1) body mass of either a 6% CHO-electrolyte (CT) or flavored water (WT) beverage was consumed intermittently before and during exercise in each trial. Oxygen consumption (VO2), ventilation (VE), respiratory rate (RR), RPE (Borg's 6-20 scale), and heart rate (HR) were recorded periodically throughout exercise. Plasma glucose (GLU) was determined before and after exercise. RESULTS: Postexercise GLU was not different between age groups but higher (P<0.001) during CT (5.6 +/- 0.2 mmol.L(-1)) compared with WT (4.7 +/- 0.1 mmol.L(-1)). CHO ingestion had no effect (P>0.05) on VO2, VE, RR, or RPE in either group. RR during exercise was higher (P<0.01) in boys (39.0 +/- 2.2 breaths.min(-1)) than in men (30.9 +/- 1.3 breaths.min(-1)). HR was slightly higher (P=0.047) during CT (160 +/- 3 beats.min(-1)) compared with WT (156 +/- 4 beats.min(-1)) and increased less over time (P<0.01) in boys compared with men. RPE at 5 min of exercise was similar (P>0.05) between boys (11.8 +/- 0.7) and men (12.0 +/- 0.7) but increased faster (P<0.01) over time in boys. The average exercise RPE was higher (P<0.01) in boys (15.8 +/- 0.5) than in men (14.0 +/- 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: The higher and faster increase in RPE during exercise in boys, compared with men, may reflect a sensitivity to RR that outweighed any effect of CHO ingestion on RPE.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".