Perceived mental strain dissociates from perceived physical strain during relative intensity submaximal exercise on ascent from low to high altitude
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perceived fatigability, which has perception of physical strain and of mental strain as its components, can impact exercise tolerance. Upon ascent to high altitude, low landers experience reduced exercise capacity and reduced tolerance for a given absolute submaximal work rate. It is established that perceived physical strain tracks with relative exercise intensity. However, it is not known how altitude ascent affects perceived mental strain relative to perceived physical strain. We tested the hypothesis that when exercising at the same relative exercise intensity perceived physical strain will remain unchanged whereas perceived mental strain will decrease on ascent from low to high altitude in the Everest region in Nepal. Twelve hours after arriving at each of three elevations; 1400 m, 3440 m, and 4240 m, 12 untrained participants used the task effort awareness (TEA) and physical-rating of perceived exertion (P-RPE) scales to report perceived mental and physical strain during a 20 min walking test at a self-monitored heart rate reserve (HRR) range of 40-60% (Polar HR Monitor). TEA and P-RPE were recorded twice during exercise (5-7 min and 14-16 min). Neither P-RPE (1400 m: 11.1 ± 1.8, 3440 m: 10.7 ± 1.2, 4240 m: 11.5 ± 1.5) nor %HRR (1400 m: 55.25 ± 7.34, 3440 m: 51.70 ± 6.70, 4240 m: 50.17 ± 4.02) changed as altitude increased. TEA decreased at 4240 m (2.05 ± 0.71) compared to 1400 m (3.44 ± 0.84)--this change was not correlated with any change in %HRR nor was it due to a change in core affect. These findings support our hypothesis and demonstrate the independence of perceived physical and perceived mental strain components of perceived fatigability. Implications for exercise tolerance remain to be determined.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".