MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Power reserve following ramp-incremental cycling to exhaustion: implications for muscle fatigue and function

2018· article· en· W2774458354 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael D. Hodgson, Daniel A. Keir, David B. Copithorne, Charles L. Rice, John M. Kowalchuk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCyclingMuscle fatigueMathematicsAnimal scienceCardiologyInternal medicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineElectromyographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In ramp-incremental cycling exercise, some individuals are capable of producing power output (PO) in excess of that produced at their limit of tolerance (LoT) whereas others cannot. This study sought to describe the 1) prevalence of a “power reserve” within a group of young men ( n = 21; mean ± SD: age 25 ± 4 yr; V̇o 2max 45 ± 8 ml·kg −1 ·min −1 ); and 2) muscle fatigue characteristics of those with and without a power reserve. “Power reserve” (ΔPReserve) was determined as the difference between peak PO achieved during a ramp-incremental test to exhaustion and maximal, single-leg isokinetic dynamometer power determined within 45 s of completing the ramp-incremental test. Between-group differences in pre- vs. postexercise changes in voluntary and electrically stimulated single-leg muscle force production measures (maximal voluntary contraction torque, voluntary activation, maximal isotonic velocity and isokinetic power; 1-, 10-, 50-Hz torque; and 10/50-Hz ratio), V̇o 2max , and constant-PO cycling time-to-exhaustion also were assessed. Frequency distribution analysis revealed a dichotomy in the prevalence of a power reserve within the sample resulting in two groups: 1) “No Reserve” (NRES: power reserve <5%; n = 10) and 2) “Reserve” (RES: power reserve >15%; n = 11). At the LoT, all participants had achieved V̇o 2max . Muscle fatigue was evident in both groups, although the NRES group had greater reductions ( P < 0.05) in 10-Hz peak torque (PT), 10/50 Hz ratio, and maximal velocity. Time to the LoT during the constant PO test was 22 ± 16% greater ( P < 0.05) in RES (116 ± 19 s; PO = 317 ± 52 W) than in NRES (90 ± 23 s; PO = 337 ± 71 W), despite similar ramp-incremental exercise durations and V̇o 2max between groups. Compared with the RES group, the NRES group accrued greater peripheral muscle fatigue at the LoT, suggesting that the mechanisms contributing to exhaustion in a ramp-incremental protocol are not uniform. NEW & NOTEWORTHY This study demonstrates that the mechanisms associated with the limit of tolerance during ramp-incremental cycling exercise differ between those who are capable of generating power output in excess of that at exercise termination vs. those who are not. Those without a “power reserve” exhibit greater peripheral muscle fatigue and reduced muscle endurance, supporting the hypothesis that exhaustion occurs at a specific level of neuromuscular fatigue. In contrast, those with a power reserve likely are limited by other mechanisms.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysiologySame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207