MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Dietary nitrate supplementation does not alter VO <sub>2p</sub> gain during ramp incremental cycling exercise

2020· article· en· W3017329296 on OpenAlexaff
James J. Vanhie, Eric T. Hedge, Jacob Fanous, Jamie R. Blackwell, Daniel A. Keir, Andrew M. Jones, Anni Vanhatalo, Charles L. Rice, John M. Kowalchuk

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of OttawaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSprintCyclingAnimal scienceRespiratory compensationDietary NitrateLactate thresholdNitriteChemistryIncremental exerciseInternal medicineMedicineEndocrinologyPhysical therapyNitrateAnaerobic exerciseHeart rateBlood lactateBiologyBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a previous study 15 days of dietary nitrate/nitrite (NO 3 − /NO 2 − ) supplementation was associated with a lower V̇O 2p gain (ΔV̇O 2p /ΔPower Output; PO) in the moderate (MOD) intensity exercise domain and a higher V̇O 2p gain for exercise above lactate threshold (θ L ) . It remains unclear how V̇O 2p gain is affected within the heavy‐ (HVY; supra‐θ L , infra‐respiratory compensation point [RCP]) and very heavy‐intensity (VH; supra‐RCP) exercise domains during ramp incremental (RI) exercise to the limit of tolerance (LoT). PURPOSE To investigate the role of 20 days of dietary NO 3 − /NO 2 − supplementation on V̇O 2p gain during a ramp incremental‐sprint (RISP) exercise protocol. METHODS Using a double‐blind, block randomised, repeated measures design, 8 healthy, active males (age 24 ± 2 yr [mean ± SD]; V̇O 2p‐max 44 ± 6 mL O 2 ·kg −1 ·min −1 ) consumed NO 3 − ‐rich (N + ; 12.8 mmol NO 3 − ) or ‐depleted (PL; 0.08 mmol NO 3 − ) beetroot juice per day for 20 days. Prior to supplementation participants completed a RISP test consisting of 6 min baseline leg cycling at 25 W, RI exercise (25 W·min −1 ) to the LoT, and, after 3 min resting recovery, a 3 min variable PO sprint protocol. V̇O 2p was measured breath‐by‐breath. No exercise was conducted on days 1–5 of supplementation. Constant‐load VH (6 bouts with each bout lasting 3–18 min) or MOD (1 bout lasting 18 min) were performed on alternate days during days 6–18. On day 20, participants completed a final RISP test. After a 14‐day washout period the protocol was repeated with participants consuming the other supplement condition. RESULTS Pre‐supplement baseline plasma [NO 3 − ] and [NO 2 − ] were not different (P > 0.05) between N + and PL, but were elevated (P < 0.05) on days 6, 14, and 20 of N + supplementation (NO 3 − : 32 ± 14 μM at BSL to 325 ± 143 μM; NO 2 − : 119 ± 130 nM at BSL to 245 ± 155 nM). There were no differences (P > 0.05) between NO 3 − ‐rich and ‐depleted conditions in V̇O 2p gain within the MOD (N + , 9.3 ± 1.2 vs PL, 9.4 ± 1.2 mL O 2 ·min −1 ·W −1 ), HVY (N + , 9.3 ± 0.9 vs PL, 9.1 ± 1.2 mL O 2 ·min −1 ·W −1 ), VH (N + , 9.7 ± 2.2 vs PL, 9.1 ± 1.9 mL O 2 ·min −1 ·W −1 ; P = 0.173) domains or whole ramp (N + , 9.6 ± 0.7 vs PL, 9.2 ± 1.0 mL O 2 ·min −1 ·W −1 ; P = 0.119). No differences were found in V̇O 2p at θ L (N + , 2.10 ± 0.50 vs PL, 2.04 ± 0.52 L·min −1 ) or RCP (N + , 3.06 ± 0.63 vs PL, 3.00 ± 0.67 L·min −1 ), or between V̇O 2p‐peak measured at end‐ramp or the final 20s of the sprint between N + and PL and within N + and PL (End‐ramp: N + , 3.67 ± 0.69 vs PL, 3.51 ± 0.73 mL·min −1 [P = 0.101]; Sprint: N + , 3.70 ± 0.66 vs PL, 3.57 ± 0.67 mL·min −1 [P = 0.08]). CONCLUSION Despite elevated plasma [NO 3 − ] and [NO 2 − ], V̇O 2p gains were unaffected in the MOD, HVY, or VH intensity domains assessed throughout RI exercise. These data suggest O 2 utilization efficiency in contracting quadriceps muscle is not impacted by elevated plasma [NO 3 − ] and [NO 2 − ], at least within the conditions of the current study. Support or Funding Information Funded by NSERC and James White Drinks

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicCardiovascular and exercise physiology→French-language works237,207→