Interlimb differences in parameters of aerobic function and local profiles of deoxygenation during double-leg and counterweighted single-leg cycling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is typically assumed that in the context of double-leg cycling, dominant (DOMLEG) and nondominant legs (NDOMLEG) have similar aerobic capacity and both contribute equally to the whole body physiological responses. However, there is a paucity of studies that have systematically investigated maximal and submaximal aerobic performance and characterized the profiles of local muscle deoxygenation in relation to leg dominance. Using counterweighted single-leg cycling, this study explored whether peak O2 consumption (V̇o2peak), maximal lactate steady-state (MLSSp), and profiles of local deoxygenation [HHb] would be different in the DOMLEG compared with the NDOMLEG. Twelve participants performed a series of double-leg and counterweighted single-leg DOMLEG and NDOMLEG ramp-exercise tests and 30-min constant-load trials. V̇o2peak was greater in the DOMLEG than in the NDOMLEG (2.87 ± 0.42 vs. 2.70 ± 0.39 L/min, P < 0.05). The difference in V̇o2peak persisted even after accounting for lean mass ( P < 0.05). Similarly, MLSSp was greater in the DOMLEG than in the NDOMLEG (118 ± 31 vs. 109 ± 31 W; P < 0.05). Furthermore, the amplitude of the [HHb] signal during ramp exercise was larger in the DOMLEG than in the NDOMLEG during both double-leg (26.0 ± 8.4 vs. 20.2 ± 8.8 µM, P < 0.05) and counterweighted single-leg cycling (18.5 ± 7.9 vs. 14.9 ± 7.5 µM, P < 0.05). Additionally, the amplitudes of the [HHb] signal were highly to moderately correlated with the mode-specific V̇o2peak values (ranging from 0.91 to 0.54). These findings showed in a group of young men that maximal and submaximal aerobic capacities were greater in the DOMLEG than in the NDOMLEG and that superior peripheral adaptations of the DOMLEG may underpin these differences.
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".