Increases in submaximal cycling efficiency mediated by altitude acclimatization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate the hypothesis that respiratory gas exchange and, in particular, the O(2) consumption (VO(2)) response to exercise is altered after a 21-day expedition to 6,194 m, five male climbers (age 28.2 +/- 2 yr; weight 76.9 +/- 4.3 kg; means +/- SE) performed a progressive and prolonged two-step cycle test both before and 3-4 days after return to sea level. During both exercise tests, a depression (P < 0.05) in VO(2) (l/min) and an increase (P < 0.05) in minute ventilation (VE BTPS; l/min) and respiratory exchange ratio were observed after the expedition. These changes occurred in the absence of changes in CO(2) production (l/min). During steady-state submaximal exercise, net efficiency, calculated from the rates of the mechanical power output to the energy expended (VO(2)) above that measured at rest, increased (P < 0.05) from 25.9 +/- 1.6 to 31. 3 +/- 1.3% at the lighter power output and from 24.4 +/- 1.3 to 29.5 +/- 1.5% at the heavy power output. These changes were accompanied by a 4.5% reduction (P < 0.05) in peak VO(2) (3.99 +/- 0.17 vs. 3.81 +/- 0.18 l/min). After the expedition, an increase (P < 0.05) in hemoglobin concentration (15.0 +/- 0.49 vs. 15.8 +/- 0.41 g/100 ml) was found. It is concluded that, because resting VO(2) was unchanged, net efficiency is enhanced during submaximal exercise after a mountaineering expedition when the exercise is performed soon after return to sea level 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".