CARDIORESPIRATORY AND MUSCLE OXYGENATION COMPARISONS DURING ARM CRANKING AND TASK-SPECIFIC PUSHING-PULLING IN HEALTHY WOMEN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fitness assessment is an important part of employee screening programs and for determination of return to work following rehabilitation. The validity of standardized upper or lower body test protocols for the assessment of occupational fitness has been questioned. PURPOSE: To compare the cardiorespiratory and localized muscle oxygenation responses between arm cranking (AC) and task-specific pushing-pulling (PP). METHODS: Eleven healthy women (mean ± SD for age: 24.5 ± 3.5 y; height: 163 ± 7 cm; mass: 57.6 ± 9.4 kg) consented to perform stepwise incremental AC (Cybex, MET300, CA) and PP (BTE Work Simulator, MD) tests until voluntary fatigue in random order in two sessions. Specific load increments were: AC - 25 watts every 2 minutes; and PP - 30 lb-in torque every 2 minutes. Cardiorespiratory responses were monitored using an automated metabolic cart and wireless heart rate monitor. Muscle deoxygenation (Mdeox) was recorded noninvasively from the right biceps using near infrared spectroscopy (MicroRunman, NIM Inc., PA). Mechanical efficiency (peak power/peak oxygen uptake[pVO2]) and deoxygenation ratio (peak power/Mdeox) were calculated at peak exercise. RESULTS: The respective values of peak power output (114 vs 25 Watts), pVO2 (1.56 vs 1.23 L/min) and oxygen pulse (8.9 vs 7.1 ml/beat) were significantly (p < 0.5) higher during AC compared to PP, while peak heart rate (176 vs 171) was not significantly different (P > .05). Muscle deoxygenation was significantly (P < .05) higher (greater deoxygenation) during PP compared to AC (−0.212 vs −0.121 optical density units). As a result, mechanical efficiency was significantly lower (P < .01) and deoxygenation ratio was significantly higher (P < .01) during PP compared to AC. CONCLUSIONS: These findings: (1) suggest greater peripheral limitation during PP compared to AC, and (2) highlight the importance of using task-specific tests for employee fitness screening. SUPPORT: Small Faculties Council, Univ. of Alberta.
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) | 0.000 | 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".