The effects of cadence and power output upon physiological and biomechanical responses to incremental arm-crank ergometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the effects of cadence and power output on physiological and biomechanical responses to incremental arm-crank ergometry (ACE). Ten male subjects (mean +/- SD age, 30.4 +/-5.4 y; height, 1.78 +/-0.07 m; mass, 86.1 +/-14.2 kg) undertook 3 incremental ACE protocols to determine peak oxygen uptake (VO2 peak; mean of 3 tests: 3.07 +/- 0.17 L.min-1) at randomly assigned cadences of 50, 70, or 90 r.min-1. Heart rate and expired air were continually monitored. Central (RPE-C) and local (RPE-L) ratings of perceived exertion were recorded at volitional exhaustion. Joint angles and trunk rotation were analysed during each exercise stage. During submaximal power outputs of 50, 70, and 90 W, oxygen consumption (VO2) was lowest for 50 r.min-1 and highest for 90 r.min-1 (p < 0.01). VO2 peak was lowest during 50 r.min-1 (2.79 +/-0.45 L.min-1; p < 0.05) when compared with both 70 r.min-1 and 90 r.min-1 (3.16 +/-0.58, 3.24 +/-0.49 L.min-1, respectively; p > 0.05). The difference between RPE-L and RPE-C at volitional exhaustion was greatest during 50 r.min-1 (2.9 +/- 1.6) when compared with 90 r.min-1 (0.9 +/- 1.9, p < 0.05). At VO2 peak, shoulder range of motion (ROM) and trunk rotation were greater for 50 and 70 r.min-1 when compared with 90 r.min-1 (p < 0.05). During submaximal power outputs, shoulder angle and trunk rotation were greatest at 50 r.min-1 when compared with 90 r.min-1 (p < 0.05). VO2 was inversely related to both trunk rotation and shoulder ROM during submaximal power outputs. The results of this study suggest that the greater forces required at lower cadences to produce a given power output resulted in greater joint angles and range of shoulder and trunk movement. Greater isometric contractions for torso stabilization and increased cost of breathing possibly from respiratory-locomotor coupling may have contributed increased oxygen consumption at higher cadences.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".