Failure of hypoxia to exaggerate the metabolic stress in working muscle following short-term training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the effects of hypoxia (experiment 1) and the effects of hypoxia following short-term training (experiment 2) on metabolism in working muscle. In experiment 1, eight males with a peak aerobic power (VO2peak) of 45 +/- 1.7 ml x kg(-1) x min(-1) (x +/- SE) cycled for 15 min at 66.1 +/- 2.1% VO2peak while breathing room air [normoxia (N)] or 14% O(2) [hypoxia (H)]. In experiment 2, nine males with a VO2peak of 43.3 +/- 1.6 ml x kg(-1) x min(-1) performed a similar protocol at 60.7 +/- 1.4% VO2peak during N and during H following 5 days of submaximal exercise training (H + T). Tissue samples extracted from the vastus lateralis before exercise and at 1, 3, and 15 min of exercise indicated that compared with N, H resulted in lower (P < 0.05) concentrations (mmol/kg dry wt) of creatine phosphate and higher (P < 0.05) concentrations of creatine, inorganic phosphate, and lactate, regardless of exercise time. When the exercise was performed at H + T and compared with N, no differences were observed in creatine phosphate, creatine, inorganic phosphate, and lactate, regardless of duration. Given the well-documented effects of the short-term training model on elevating VO2 kinetics and attenuating the alterations in high-energy phosphate metabolism and lactate accumulation, it would appear that the mechanism underlying the reversal of these adaptations during H is linked to a more rapid increase in oxidative phosphorylation, mediated by increased oxygen delivery and/or mitochondrial activation.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".