The oxygen delivery response to acute hypoxia during incremental knee extension exercise differs in active and trained males
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is well known that hypoxic exercise in healthy individuals increases limb blood flow, leg oxygen extraction and limb vascular conductance during knee extension exercise. However, the effect of hypoxia on cardiac output, and total vascular conductance is less clear. Furthermore, the oxygen delivery response to hypoxic exercise in well trained individuals is not well known. Therefore our aim was to determine the cardiac output (Doppler echocardiography), vascular conductance, limb blood flow (Doppler echocardiography) and muscle oxygenation response during hypoxic knee extension in normally active and endurance-trained males. METHODS: Ten normally active and nine endurance-trained males (VO2max = 46.1 and 65.5 mL/kg/min, respectively) performed 2 leg knee extension at 25, 50, 75 and 100% of their maximum intensity in both normoxic and hypoxic conditions (FIO2 = 15%; randomized order). Results were analyzed with a 2-way mixed model ANOVA (group x intensity). RESULTS: The main finding was that in normally active individuals hypoxic sub-maximal exercise (25 - 75% of maximum intensity) brought about a 3 fold increase in limb blood flow but decreased stroke volume compared to normoxia. In the trained group there were no significant changes in stroke volume, cardiac output and limb blood flow at sub-maximal intensities (compared to normoxia). During maximal intensity hypoxic exercise limb blood flow increased approximately 300 mL/min compared to maximal intensity normoxic exercise. CONCLUSION: Cardiorespiratory fitness likely influences the oxygen delivery response to hypoxic exercise both at a systemic and limb level. The increase in limb blood flow during maximal exercise in hypoxia (both active and trained individuals) suggests a hypoxic stimulus that is not present in normoxic conditions.
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) | 0.002 | 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".