Comparison of oxygen uptake kinetics during concentric and eccentric cycle exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O2 uptake (VO2) kinetics and electromyographic (EMG) activity from the vastus medialis, rectus femoris, biceps femoris, and medial gastrocnemius muscles were studied during constant-load concentric and eccentric cycling. Six healthy men performed transitions from baseline to high-intensity eccentric (HE) exercise and to high-intensity (HC), moderate-intensity (MC), and low-intensity (LC) concentric exercise. For HE and HC exercise, absolute work rate was equivalent. For HE and LC exercise, VO2 was equivalent. VO2 data were fit by a two- or three-component exponential model. Surface EMG was recorded during the last 12 s of each minute of exercise to obtain integrated EMG and mean power frequency. Only in the HC exercise did VO2 increase progressively with evidence of a slow component (phase 3), and only in HC exercise was there evidence of a coincident increase with time in integrated EMG of the vastus medialis and rectus femoris muscles (P < 0.05) with no change in mean power frequency. The phase 2 time constant was slower in HC [24.0 +/- 1.7 (SE) s] than in HE (14.7 +/- 2.8 s) and LC (16.7 +/- 2.2 s) exercise, while it was not different from MC exercise (20.6 +/- 2.1 s). These results show that the rate of increase in VO2 at the onset of exercise was not different between HE and LC exercise, where the metabolic demand was similar, but both had significantly faster kinetics for VO2 than HC exercise. The VO2 slow component might be related to increased muscle activation, which is a function of metabolic demand and not absolute work rate.
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".