Salivary endocrine response following a maximal incremental cycling protocol with local vibration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the effects of vibration (Vib versus noVib) during a maximal graded cycling exercise on hormonal response, precisely on cortisol (C) and testosterone (T). Twelve active males (25 ± 5yrs; 181 ± 5cm; 80.7 ± 11.1kg) randomly performed two maximal incremental cycling tests on two separate days and at the same time of the day (09:00). The protocol consisted of incremental steps of 3 min duration performed on a PowerBIKETM that induces vibration cycling. The study was a repeated measures design and participants performed the test with and without vibration. Gas exchange and heart rate (HR) were continuously assessed and blood lactate (Bla) was recorded at the end of each incremental stage. Saliva samples were collected before and immediately after the test, and analysed for (C) and (T). The results show that C and T increased in both cycling conditions; however, the C's magnitude of change was significantly higher by 83% after Vib cycling in comparison to the no Vib (p = 0.014), whereas the T's magnitude of change were not statistically different between trials (p = 0.715). Vibration induced a decrease of the T/C ratio (p = 0.046) but no significant changes were observed following noVib (p = 0.476). As a conclusion, the investigation suggests that adding mechanical vibration to cycling may potentiate a catabolic exercise-induced state, which could have potential clinical implications in rehabilitation and injury treatment. Sport experts should take this message home to carefully plan the recovery process and time during training and competitions.
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) | 0.000 | 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".