Blood flow and muscle oxygenation during low, moderate, and maximal sustained isometric contractions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A reduction of blood flow to active muscle will precipitate fatigue, and sustained isometric contractions produce intramuscular and compartmental pressures that can limit flow. The present study explored how blood flow and muscle oxygenation respond to isometric contractions at low, moderate, and maximal intensities. Over two visits, 10 males (26 ± 2 yr; means ± SD) performed 1-min dorsiflexion contractions at 30, 60, and 100% of maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) torque. Doppler ultrasound of the anterior tibial artery was used to record arterial diameter and mean blood velocity and to calculate absolute blood flow. The tissue oxygenation index (TOI) of tibialis anterior was acquired with near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS). There was a progressive increase in blood flow at 30% MVC (peak of 289 ± 139% resting value), no change from rest until an increase in the final 10 s of exercise at 60% MVC (peak of 197 ± 102% rest), and an initial decrease (59 ± 30% resting value) followed by a progressive increase at 100% MVC (peak of 355 ± 133% rest). Blood flow was greater at 30 and 100% than 60% MVC during the last 30 s of exercise. TOI was ∼63% at rest and, within 30 s of exercise, reached steady-state values of ∼42%, ∼22%, and ∼22% for 30, 60, and 100% MVC, respectively. Even maximal contraction of the dorsiflexors is unable to cause more than a transient decrease of flow in the anterior tibial artery. Unlike dynamic or intermittent isometric exercise, our results indicate blood flow is not linearly graded with intensity or directly coupled with oxygenation during sustained isometric contractions.
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) | 0.000 | 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".