Central and Peripheral Response to Incremental Cycling Exercise in Older Untrained Active Men: A Comparison of Those In-Between
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the central and peripheral components of cardiorespiratory fitness during incremental to maximal exercise between older men who were either recreational athletes (RA) or leisurely active (LA) men, i.e., those who fall between trained and untrained. This was a cross-sectional study in which all subjects completed an exercise test on a cycle ergometer. Maximal oxygen consumption (VO(2max)) and ventilatory threshold (VT) were assessed using gas analysis, and central components of VO(2max) were assessed using a non-invasive thoracic bio-impedance device. VO(2max) (RA: 45.1+/-4.8 ml/kg/min; LA: 32.2+/-4.6 ml/kg/min, p</=0.001) and SV at maximal exercise (RA: 133.5+/-24.96 ml/beat; LA: 107.9+/-17.6 ml/beat, p=0.005) were higher in the RA group compared to the LA group. A plateau in SV occurred between 30-45 % of maximal exercise capacity in the RA group. No differences in SV were observed across workloads in the LA group. No differences in the calculated arterio-venous oxygen difference ((a-v)O(2diff)) were observed between groups. In conclusions, training volume appears to influence central components of cardiorespiratory fitness among a matched sample of older men who are neither trained nor untrained. This builds a case for increasing the volume of training to preserve cardiorespiratory fitness among older men.
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".