Muscle oxygenation maintained during repeated-sprints despite inspiratory muscle loading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A high work of breathing can compromise limb oxygen delivery during sustained high-intensity exercise. However, it is unclear if the same is true for intermittent sprint exercise. This project examined the effect of adding an inspiratory load on locomotor muscle tissue reoxygenation during repeated-sprint exercise. Ten healthy males completed three experiment sessions of ten 10-s sprints, separated by 30-s of passive rest on a cycle ergometer. The first two sessions were "all-out' efforts performed without (CTRL) or with inspiratory loading (INSP) in a randomised and counterbalanced order. The third experiment session (MATCH) consisted of ten 10-s work-matched intervals. Tissue saturation index (TSI) and deoxy-haemoglobin (HHb) of the vastus lateralis and sixth intercostal space was monitored with near-infrared spectroscopy. Vastus lateralis reoxygenation (ΔReoxy) was calculated as the difference from peak HHb (sprint) to nadir HHb (recovery). Total mechanical work completed was similar between INSP and CTRL (effect size: -0.18, 90% confidence limit ±0.43), and differences in vastus lateralis TSI during the sprint (-0.01 ±0.33) and recovery (-0.08 ±0.50) phases were unclear. There was also no meaningful difference in ΔReoxy (0.21 ±0.37). Intercostal HHb was higher in the INSP session compared to CTRL (0.42 ±0.34), whilst the difference was unclear for TSI (-0.01 ±0.33). During MATCH exercise, differences in vastus lateralis TSI were unclear compared to INSP for both sprint (0.10 ±0.30) and recovery (-0.09 ±0.48) phases, and there was no meaningful difference in ΔReoxy (-0.25 ±0.55). Intercostal TSI was higher during MATCH compared to INSP (0.95 ±0.53), whereas HHb was lower (-1.09 ±0.33). The lack of difference in ΔReoxy between INSP and CTRL suggests that for intermittent sprint exercise, the metabolic O2 demands of both the respiratory and locomotor muscles can be met. Additionally, the similarity of the MATCH suggests that ΔReoxy was maximal in all exercise conditions.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".