The effect of priming exercise on O<sub>2</sub> uptake kinetics, muscle O<sub>2</sub> delivery and utilization, muscle activity, and exercise tolerance in boys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study used priming exercise in young boys to investigate (i) how muscle oxygen delivery and oxygen utilization, and muscle activity modulate oxygen uptake kinetics during exercise; and (ii) whether the accelerated oxygen uptake kinetics following priming exercise can improve exercise tolerance. Seven boys that were aged 11.3 ± 1.6 years completed either a single bout (bout 1) or repeated bouts with 6 min of recovery (bout 2) of very heavy-intensity cycling exercise. During the tests oxygen uptake, muscle oxygenation, muscle electrical activity and exercise tolerance were measured. Priming exercise most likely shortened the oxygen uptake mean response time (change, ±90% confidence limits; -8.0 s, ±3.0), possibly increased the phase II oxygen uptake amplitude (0.11 L·min(-1), ±0.09) and very likely reduced the oxygen uptake slow component amplitude (-0.08 L·min(-1), ±0.07). Priming resulted in a likely reduction in integrated electromyography (-24% baseline, ±21% and -25% baseline, ±19) and a very likely reduction in Δ deoxyhaemoglobin/Δoxygen uptake (-0.16, ±0.11 and -0.09, ±0.05) over the phase II and slow component portions of the oxygen uptake response, respectively. A correlation was present between the change in tissue oxygenation index during bout 2 and the change in the phase II (r = -0.72, likely negative) and slow component (r = 0.72, likely positive) oxygen uptake amplitudes following priming exercise, but not for muscle activity. Exercise tolerance was likely reduced (change -177 s, ±180) following priming exercise. The altered phase II and slow component oxygen uptake amplitudes in boys following priming exercise are linked to an improved localised matching of muscle oxygen delivery to oxygen uptake and not muscle electrical activity. Despite more rapid oxygen uptake kinetics following priming exercise, exercise tolerance was not enhanced.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".