The Physiological Mechanisms of Performance Enhancement with Sprint Interval Training Differ between the Upper and Lower Extremities in Humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To elucidate the mechanisms underlying the differences in adaptation of arm and leg muscles to sprint training, over a period of 11 days 16 untrained men performed six sessions of 4-6x30-sec all-out sprints (SIT) with the legs and arms, separately, with a 1-h interval of recovery. Limb-specific VO2peak, sprint performance (two 30-sec Wingate tests with 4-min recovery), muscle efficiency and time-trial performance (TT, 5-min all-out) were assessed and biopsies from the m. vastus lateralis and m. triceps brachii taken before and after training. VO2peak and Wmax increased 3-11% after training, with a more pronounced change in the arms (P < 0.05). Gross efficiency improved for the arms (+8.8%, P < 0.05), but not the legs (-0.6%). Wingate peak and mean power outputs improved similarly for the arms and legs, as did TT performance. After training, VO2 during the two Wingate tests was increased by 52% and 6% for the arms and legs, respectively (P < 0.001). In the case of the arms, VO2 was higher during the first than second Wingate test (64% vs. 44%, P < 0.05). During the TT, relative exercise intensity, HR, VO2, VCO2, VE, and Vt were all lower during arm-cranking than leg-pedaling, and oxidation of fat was minimal, remaining so after training. Despite the higher relative intensity, fat oxidation was 70% greater during leg-pedaling (P = 0.017). The aerobic energy contribution in the legs was larger than for the arms during the Wingate tests, although VO2 for the arms was enhanced more by training, reducing the O2 deficit after SIT. The levels of muscle glycogen, as well as the myosin heavy chain composition were unchanged in both cases, while the activities of 3-hydroxyacyl-CoA-dehydrogenase and citrate synthase were elevated only in the legs and capillarization enhanced in both limbs. Multiple regression analysis demonstrated that the variables that predict TT performance differ for the arms and legs. The primary mechanism of adaptation to SIT by both the arms and legs is enhancement of aerobic energy production. However, with their higher proportion of fast muscle fibers, the arms exhibit greater plasticity.
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) | 0.001 | 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".