Changes in arterial stiffness after eccentric versus concentric cycling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared changes in brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity (baPWV) after concentric (CON) versus eccentric (ECC) cycling. It was hypothesized that baPWV would increase after the first ECC bout (ECC1) because of muscle damage, but not after the second ECC bout (ECC2), and would decrease after CON. Fifteen young (aged 20–30 years) men performed 2 bouts of 30-min ECC (ECC1 and ECC2) at 60% of maximal CON power output and 2 bouts of 30-min CON at the same intensity as that of ECC (CON1), and at the same oxygen consumption as that of ECC (CON2) every 2 weeks. Oxygen uptake during the cycling was recorded, and baPWV was measured before and at 0.5, 1, 24, and 48 h after each cycling bout. Maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) torque and muscle soreness of the knee extensors were assessed before and at 24 and 48 h after each cycling bout. Changes in these variables over time were compared among the 4 cycling bouts by 2-way repeated-measured ANOVA. baPWV decreased (P < 0.05) 8% from the baseline (1119 ± 116 cm/s) at 0.5 h after CON1 (1028 ± 126 cm/s), but no significant changes were evident after ECC1, ECC2, and CON2. MVC torque decreased 10% from the baseline at 24 h after ECC1, but no significant changes were evident after CON1, CON2, and ECC2. These results did not support the hypothesis, and suggest that minor muscle damage induced by eccentric cycling does not affect arterial stiffness.
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".