Do interindividual differences in cardiac output during submaximal exercise explain differences in exercising muscle oxygenation and ratings of perceived exertion?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considerable interindividual differences in the Q˙-V˙O2 relationship during exercise have been documented but implications for submaximal exercise tolerance have not been considered. We tested the hypothesis that these interindividual differences were associated with differences in exercising muscle deoxygenation and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) across a range of submaximal exercise intensities. A total of 31 (21 ± 3 years) healthy recreationally active males performed an incremental exercise test to exhaustion 24 h following a resting muscle biopsy. Cardiac output (Q˙ L/min; inert gas rebreathe), oxygen uptake (V˙O2 L/min; breath-by-breath pulmonary gas exchange), quadriceps saturation (near infrared spectroscopy) and exercise tolerance (6-20; Borg Scale RPE) were measured. The Q˙-V˙O2 relationship from 40 to 160 W was used to partition individuals post hoc into higher (n = 10; 6.3 ± 0.4) versus lower (n = 10; 3.7 ± 0.4, P < 0.001) responders. The Q˙-V˙O2 difference between responder types was not explained by arterial oxygen content differences (P = 0.5) or peripheral skeletal muscle characteristics (P from 0.1 to 0.8) but was strongly associated with stroke volume (P < 0.05). Despite considerable Q˙-V˙O2 difference between groups, no difference in quadriceps deoxygenation was observed during exercise (all P > 0.4). Lower cardiac responders had greater leg (P = 0.027) and whole body (P = 0.03) RPE only at 185 W, but this represented a higher %peak V˙O2 in lower cardiac responders (87 ± 15% vs. 66 ± 12%, P = 0.005). Substantially lower Q˙-V˙O2 in the lower responder group did not result in altered RPE or exercising muscle deoxygenation. This suggests substantial recruitment of blood flow redistribution in the lower responder group as part of protecting matching of exercising muscle oxygen delivery to demand.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".