MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Neuromuscular Fatigue Following Cycling To Task Failure In Different Exercise Intensity Domains

2021· article· en· W3177988782 on OpenAlexaff
Jenny Zhang, Danilo Iannetta, Mohammed Alzeeby, Martin J. MacInnis, Juan M. Murias, Saied Jalal Aboodarda

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsometric exerciseCyclingAnalysis of varianceRepeated measures designPost-hoc analysisIntensity (physics)MedicinePost hocCardiologyInternal medicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyMathematicsPhysicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neuromuscular (NM) fatigue can vary according to exercise intensity and duration; however, fatigue responses across the full spectrum of exercise intensities to task failure remain unclear. PURPOSE: To characterize the central and peripheral NM fatigue responses to cycling to task failure in different exercise intensity domains. METHODS: After a ramp incremental test, 12 healthy, active males (29 ± 5 years) underwent 4 cycling sessions to task failure at 5% below gas exchange threshold (moderate domain; MOD), 5% below the maximal metabolic steady state; HVY), 5% below peak power output (severe domain; SVR), and 120% of peak power output (extreme domain; EXT). At baseline, upon task failure (post), and following 1, 4, and 8 min of recovery, participants performed an NM assessment consisting of a maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVC) with superimposed and potentiated high frequency doublets (Db100), followed by a low frequency doublet (Db10) and single twitch (QTw). Two-way repeated measures ANOVAs with Bonferroni post hoc examined 4 domains 5 timepoints. RESULTS: MVC declined to the same extent in all domains at post (all p > 0.05) and although not fully recovered at 8 min, the fastest recovery from post was displayed after EXT (+59.5 ± 79.0%) compared to MOD (+9.4 ± 32.0%, p = 0.035), HVY (+17.7 ± 21.8%, p = 0.021), and SVR (+29.8% ± 29.9%, p = 0.016). Voluntary activation at post was lowest after MOD (-11.1 ± 11.6%) compared to EXT (-0.5 ± 4.6%, p = 0.030), and all conditions fully recovered to baseline without differences between domains at 8 min (all p > 0.05). While QTwat post displayed greatest decline in EXT (-50.5 ± 14.7%) and least in MOD (-7.5 ± 28.3%, p = 0.011), EXT (+86.1 ± 69.2%) partially recovered by 8 min to match MOD values (+2.3 ± 17.7%, p = 0.865). Low frequency fatigue (Db10:100) at post was lowest in MOD (-8.6 ± 6.1%) compared to HVY (-18.4 ± 7.9%, p = 0.007), SVR (-22.8 ± 9.3%, p = 0.020), and EXT (-24.8 ± 10.7%, p < 0.001), but all conditions partially recovered from post to match MOD values at 8 min (+2.3 ± 7.2%, all p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although MVC declined to the same extent following exercise to task failure in all domains, our data confirm that the contribution of central and peripheral factors to this decline differed between conditions. Different NM fatigue recovery patterns were also demonstrated during recovery.

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 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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicMuscle activation and electromyography studies→French-language works237,207→