Oxygen uptake during upper body and lower body Wingate anaerobic tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the aerobic contribution to upper body and lower body Wingate Anaerobic tests (WAnT). Eight nonspecifically trained males volunteered to take part in this study. Participants undertook incremental exercise tests for peak oxygen uptake and two 30-s WAnT (habituation and experimental) for both the upper and lower body. The resistive loadings used were 0.040 and 0.075 kg·kg body mass(-1), respectively. Peak power output (PPO) and mean power output (MPO) were calculated for each WAnT. The aerobic contribution of each WAnT was assessed using breath by breath expired gas analysis. Peak oxygen uptake was lower for the upper body when compared with the lower body (P = 0.001). Similarly, PPO and MPO were greater for the lower body (both P < 0.001). Absolute oxygen uptake during the upper body WAnT was lower than for the lower body (P = 0.013), whereas relative oxygen uptake (% peak oxygen uptake) was similar (P = 0.997). The mean aerobic contribution for the upper body WAnT (43.5% ± 29.3%) was greater than for the lower body (29.4% ± 15.8%; P < 0.001). The greater aerobic contribution to the WAnT observed for the upper body in comparison with the lower body is likely due to methodological differences in upper and lower body WAnT protocols and potentially differences in anaerobic power production and exercise efficiency. The results of this study suggest that differences may exist for the aerobic contribution of upper and lower body Wingate anaerobic tests.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".