Contribution of central and peripheral adaptations to changes in maximal oxygen uptake following 4 weeks of sprint interval training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study examined the contribution of central and peripheral adaptations to changes in maximal oxygen uptake (V̇O2max) following sprint interval training (SIT). Twenty-three males completed 4 weekly SIT sessions (8 × 20-s cycling bouts at ∼170% of work rate at V̇O2max, 10-s recovery) for 4 weeks. Following completion of training, the relationship between changes in V̇O2max and changes in central (cardiac output) and peripheral (arterial–mixed venous oxygen difference (a-vO2diff), muscle capillary density, oxidative capacity, fibre-type distribution) adaptations was determined in all participants using correlation analysis. Participants were then divided into tertiles on the basis of the magnitude of their individual V̇O2max responses, and differences in central and peripheral adaptations were examined in the top (HI; ∼10 mL·kg−1·min−1 increase in V̇O2max, p < 0.05) and bottom (LO; no change in V̇O2max, p > 0.05) tertiles (n = 8 each). Training had no impact on maximal cardiac output, and no differences were observed between the LO group and the HI group (p > 0.05). The a-vO2diff increased in the HI group only (p < 0.05) and correlated significantly (r = 0.71, p < 0.01) with changes in V̇O2max across all participants. Muscle capillary density (p < 0.02) and β-hydroxyacyl-CoA dehydrogenase maximal activity (p < 0.05) increased in both groups, with no between-group differences (p > 0.05). Citrate synthase maximal activity (p < 0.01) and type IIA fibre composition (p < 0.05) increased in the LO group only. Collectively, although the heterogeneity in the observed V̇O2max response following 4 weeks of SIT appears to be attributable to individual differences in systemic vascular and/or muscular adaptations, the markers examined in the current study were unable to explain the divergent V̇O2max responses in the LO and HI groups.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".