Central and peripheral hemodynamics in exercising humans: leg vs arm exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In humans, arm exercise is known to elicit larger increases in arterial blood pressure (BP) than leg exercise. However, the precise regulation of regional vascular conductances (VC) for the distribution of cardiac output with exercise intensity remains unknown. Hemodynamic responses were assessed during incremental upright arm cranking (AC) and leg pedalling (LP) to exhaustion (Wmax) in nine males. Systemic VC, peak cardiac output (Qpeak) (indocyanine green) and stroke volume (SV) were 18%, 23%, and 20% lower during AC than LP. The mean BP, the rate-pressure product and the associated myocardial oxygen demand were 22%, 12%, and 14% higher, respectively, during maximal AC than LP. Trunk VC was reduced to similar values at Wmax. At Wmax, muscle mass-normalized VC and fractional O2 extraction were lower in the arm than the leg muscles. However, this was compensated for during AC by raising perfusion pressure to increase O2 delivery, allowing a similar peak VO2 per kg of muscle mass in both extremities. In summary, despite a lower Qpeak during arm cranking the cardiovascular strain is much higher than during leg pedalling. The adjustments of regional conductances during incremental exercise to exhaustion depend mostly on the relative intensity of exercise and are limb-specific.
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 | 0.001 | 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".