MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Differences in Fatigue During Maximal Arm-Cycling Sprints Interspersed with 30s and 180s of Rest

2016· article· en· W2510724695 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Monks, Chris T. Compton, Joseph D. Yetman, Kevin E. Power, Duane C. Button

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSprintCyclingHeart rateRest (music)Physical therapyCardiologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineInternal medicineBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To investigate: 1) the time course of upper body fatigue during 10, 10s maximal arm-cycling sprints and 2) whether or not the extent of fatigue was dependent of the rest duration between sprints. METHODS: On two separate days, participants (N = 10) completed 10 trials of 10s maximal arm-cycling sprints interspersed with either 30s or 180s of recovery. Each session was separated by 48 hours. Peak power was recorded during all sprints. Participants performed a maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) of the elbow flexors prior to the first sprint and immediately post-sprints 5 and 10. Heart rate and rate of perceived exertion (RPE) were also recorded. RESULTS: Peak power decreased from sprint 1 to 10 by 35.8% (p < 0.001) and 11.5% (p = 0.010) when the sprints were interspersed with 30s and 180s rest, respectively. With the exception of sprint 1, participants produced a higher peak power from sprints 2-10 when the sprints were interspersed with 180s rest compared to 30s rest (p < 0.050). When the sprints were interspersed with 30s and 180s rest, MVC force decreased by 6.1% (p = 0.008) and 11.1% (p = 0.005) from pre-sprint 1 to post-sprint 5, 11.2% (p < 0.001) and 17.5% (p < 0.001) from pre-sprint 1 to post-sprint 10, and 5.1% (p = 0.039) and 6.4% (p = 0.014) from pre-sprint 5 to post-sprint 10, respectively. When the sprints were interspersed with 30s compared to 180s rest MVC force was 5.1% (p = 0.024) and 6.4% (p = 0.004) higher at post-sprints 5 and 10, respectively. From sprint 2-10, heart rate recovery was greater during 180s compared to 30s (p < 0.001). RPE increased throughout the sprints (p < 0.01) when sprints were interspersed with 30s and 180s rest, but no between-group differences occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Independent of rest time between sprints; there was a decrease in peak power during the sprints and elbow flexor MVC force. Interestingly, there was a greater reduction in MVC force of the elbow flexors when the sprints were interspersed with 180s compared to 30s of rest, which was opposite to the changes found for the power outputs (i.e. greater reduction in power when sprints were interspersed with 30s rest). Finally, changes in RPE were independent of rest time between sprints despite participants having higher heart rates and less heart rate recovery when performing sprints interspersed with 30s rest.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicSports Performance and Training→French-language works237,207→