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 (DOM LEG ) and nondominant legs (NDOM LEG ) 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 O 2 consumption (V̇o 2peak ), maximal lactate steady-state (MLSS p ), and profiles of local deoxygenation [HHb] would be different in the DOM LEG compared with the NDOM LEG . Twelve participants performed a series of double-leg and counterweighted single-leg DOM LEG and NDOM LEG ramp-exercise tests and 30-min constant-load trials. V̇o 2peak was greater in the DOM LEG than in the NDOM LEG (2.87 ± 0.42 vs. 2.70 ± 0.39 L/min, P < 0.05). The difference in V̇o 2peak persisted even after accounting for lean mass ( P < 0.05). Similarly, MLSS p was greater in the DOM LEG than in the NDOM LEG (118 ± 31 vs. 109 ± 31 W; P < 0.05). Furthermore, the amplitude of the [HHb] signal during ramp exercise was larger in the DOM LEG than in the NDOM LEG 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 V̇o 2peak 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 DOM LEG than in the NDOM LEG and that superior peripheral adaptations of the DOM LEG 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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".