Cardiorespiratory and Autonomic Nervous System Responses to Prolonged Eccentric Cycling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Offering large muscle benefits despite low metabolic demand, continuous eccentric exercise appears to be an interesting alternative to concentric exercise. Nevertheless, further knowledge is needed about prolonged eccentric exercise. This work sought to investigate the cardiovascular responses to prolonged constant-load eccentric compared to concentric cycling. Ten healthy males performed two 45-min exercise sessions of either concentric or eccentric cycling separated by a month and matched for heart rate during the first 5 min of exercise. Cardiorespiratory, autonomic nervous system and vascular responses were assessed at rest, and during exercise and recovery. During cycling, oxygen uptake, cardiac output and systolic blood pressure were similar but heart rate and diastolic blood pressure were greater whereas stroke volume was lower during eccentric than concentric cycling (118±21 vs. 104±10 bpm; 77±9 vs. 65±8 mmHg; 122±12 vs. 135±13 mL). Baroreflex and noradrenaline concentration were altered during eccentric cycling, and after eccentric exercise, vascular tone was greater than after concentric cycling. We observed increased cardiovascular strain and altered baroreflex activity during eccentric compared with concentric exercise, suggesting eccentric cycling triggers greater sympathetic activity.
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".