Acute Physiological Response to Different Sprint Training Protocols in Normobaric Hypoxia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: the purpose of this study was to examine acute physiological responses to and the performance effects of two sprint training protocols in normobaric hypoxic conditions. Methods: Healthy competitive female (n = 2) and male (n = 5) kayakers (19 ± 2.1 years) performed four sprint training sessions on a kayak ergometer over a period of two weeks. Participants performed five sets of 12 × 5 s sprints or 3 × 20 s sprints in both normobaric normoxic (NOR, FiO2 = 20.9%) or normobaric hypoxic (HYP, FiO2 = 13.6%) conditions. The peak power output (PPO), rate of perceived exertion (RPE), and heart rate (HR) of each participant were monitored continuously. Their blood lactate concentrations ([BLa+]), in addition to their blood gas (mixed-venous partial pressure (p) of carbon dioxide (pCO2), O2 (pO2), and oxygen saturations (sO2)) were collected before and after exercise. Results: A significantly greater RPE, HR, and [BLa+] response and a significant decrease in pCO2, pO2, and sO2 were observed in HYP conditions versus NOR ones, independent of the type of training session. The PPO of participants did not differ between sessions. Their RPE in HYP12 × 5 was greater compared to all other sessions. Conclusions: The HYP conditions elicited significantly greater physiological strain compared to NOR conditions and this was similar in both training sessions. Our results suggest that either sprint training protocol in HYP conditions may induce more positive training adaptations compared to sprint training in NOR conditions.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".