The Impact of Cycling Cadence on Respiratory and Hemodynamic Responses to Exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The physiological consequences of freely chosen cadence during cycling remains poorly understood. We sought to determine the effect of cadence on the respiratory and hemodynamic response to cycling exercise. METHODS: Eleven cyclists (10 males, 1 female; age, 27 ± 6 yr; V˙O2max = 60.8 ± 3.7 mL·kg·min) completed four, 6-min constant-load cycling trials at 10% below their previously determined gas exchange threshold (i.e., 63% ± 5% peak power) while pedaling at 60, 90, and 120 rpm, and a freely chosen cadence (94.3 ± 6.9 rpm) in randomized order. Standard cardiorespiratory parameters were measured and an esophageal electrode balloon catheter was used to assess electromyography of the diaphragm (EMGdi) and the work of breathing (Wb). Leg blood flow index (BFI) was determined on four muscles using near-infrared spectroscopy with indocyanine green dye injections. RESULTS: Oxygen uptake (V˙O2) increased as a function of increasing cadence (all pairwise comparisons, P < 0.05). The EMGdi and Wb were significantly greater at 120 rpm compared with all other conditions (all P < 0.01). Vastus medialis and semitendinosus BFI were significantly greater at 120 rpm compared with 60 and 90 rpm (all P < 0.05). Gastrocnemius BFI was higher at 120 rpm compared with all other cadences (all P < 0.01). No difference in BFI was found in the vastus lateralis (P = 0.06). Blood flow index was significantly correlated with the increase in V˙O2 with increasing cadence in the medial gastrocnemius (P < 0.001) and approached significance in the vastus lateralis (P = 0.09), vastus medialis (P = 0.06), and semitendinosus (P = 0.09). There was no effect of cadence on Borg 0-10 breathing or leg discomfort ratings (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: High cadence cycling at submaximal exercise intensities is metabolically inefficient and increases EMGdi, Wb, and leg muscle blood flow relative to slower cadences.
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) | 0.002 | 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".