Effect of plasma donation and blood donation on aerobic and anaerobic responses in exhaustive, severe-intensity exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the immediate and delayed effects of plasma donation and blood donation on responses in exhaustive, severe-intensity exercise. Nineteen young men and women performed exhaustive cycle ergometer tests at ∼3.3 W·kg(-1) before and then 2 h, 2 days, and 7 days after withdrawal of either 8-10 mL·kg(-1) (∼700 mL) of plasma (n = 10) or 1 unit (450 mL) of whole blood (n = 9). Time to exhaustion was significantly (p < 0.05) decreased after the removal of plasma (-11% after 2 h) and after the removal of blood (-19% after 2 h and -7% after 2 days). Maximal oxygen uptake (.VO(2max)) was not affected by plasma donation, but .VO(2max) was reduced following blood withdrawal (-15% after 2 h, -10% after 2 days, and -7% after 7 days) presumably because of effects on blood volume, total haemoglobin content, and haemoglobin concentration. The kinetics of the oxygen uptake (.VO2) response was not affected by either intervention. Two measures of anaerobic capacity, postexercise blood lactate concentration, and maximal accumulated oxygen deficit were reduced (-14%, -15%, respectively) 2 h after plasma donation, but neither was affected by blood donation. Removal of plasma and removal of blood have different effects on blood constituency, on the .VO2 response, and on performance. Plasma donation appears to affect exercise performance because of reduced anaerobic capacity, whereas blood donation affects performance because of lowered .VO(2max).
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".