Hemodynamic and metabolic responses to self-paced and ramp-graded exercise testing protocols
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent examinations have shown lower maximal oxygen consumption during traditional ramp (RAMP) compared with self-paced (SPV) graded exercise testing (GXT) attributed to differences in cardiac output. The current study examined the differences in hemodynamic and metabolic responses between RAMP and SPV during treadmill exercise. Sixteen recreationally trained men (aged23.7 ± 3.0 years) completed 2 separate treadmill GXT protocols. SPV consisted of five 2-min stages (10 min total) of increasing speed clamped by the Borg RPE6-20 scale. RAMP increased speed by 0.16 km/h every 15 s until volitional exhaustion. All testing was performed at 3% incline. Oxygen consumption was measured via indirect calorimetry; hemodynamic function was measured via thoracic impedance and blood lactate (BLa−) was measured via portable lactate analyzer. Differences between SPV and RAMP protocols were analyzed as group means by using paired-samples t tests (R Core Team 2017). Maximal values for SPV and RAMP were similar (p > 0.05) for oxygen uptake (47.1 ± 3.4 vs. 47.4 ± 3.4 mL·kg−1·min−1), heart rate (198 ± 5 vs. 200 ± 6 beats·min−1), ventilation (158.8 ± 20.7 vs. 159.3 ± 19.0 L·min−1), cardiac output (26.9 ± 5.5 vs. 27.9 ± 4.2 L·min−1), stroke volume (SV) (145.9 ± 29.2 vs. 149.8 ± 25.3 mL·beat−1), arteriovenous oxygen difference (18.5 ± 3.1 vs. 19.7 ± 3.1 mL·dL−1), ventilatory threshold (VT) (78.2 ± 7.2 vs. 79.0% ± 7.6%), and peak BLa− (11.7 ± 2.3 vs. 11.5 ± 2.4 mmol·L−1), respectively. In conclusion, SPV elicits similar maximal hemodynamic responses in comparison to RAMP; however, SV kinetics exhibited unique characteristics based on protocol. These results support SPV as a feasible GXT protocol to identify useful fitness parameters (maximal oxygen uptake, oxygen uptake kinetics, and VT).
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".