Power Output Manipulation from Below to Above the Gas Exchange Threshold Results in Exacerbated Performance Fatigability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Performance fatigability is substantially greater when exercising in the severe- versus heavy-intensity domain. However, the relevance of the boundary between moderate- and heavy-intensity exercise, the gas exchange threshold (GET), to performance fatigability is unclear. This study compared alterations in neuromuscular function during work-matched exercise above and below the GET. METHODS: Seventeen male participants completed work-matched cycling for 90, 110, and 140 min at 110%, 90%, and 70% of the GET, respectively. Knee extensor isometric maximal voluntary contraction (MVC), high-frequency doublets (Db100), low- to high-frequency doublet ratio (Db10:100), and voluntary activation were measured at baseline, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of task completion. During the initial baseline visit and after each constant work rate bout, ramp-incremental exercise was performed, and peak power output and oxygen uptake (V̇O 2peak ) were determined. RESULTS: After the 70% and 90% GET trials, similar reductions in MVC (-14% ± 6% and -14% ± 8%, respectively, P = 0.175) and Db100 (-7% ± 9% and -6% ± 9%, respectively, P = 0.431) were observed. However, for a given amount of work completed, reductions in MVC (-25% ± 15%, P = 0.008) and Db100 (-12% ± 8%, P = 0.029) were up to 2.6-fold greater during the 110% than the 90% GET trial. Peak power output and V̇O 2peak during ramp-incremental exercise were reduced by 7.0% ± 11.3% and 6.5% ± 9.3%, respectively, after the 110% GET trial relative to the baseline ramp ( P ≤ 0.015), with no changes after the moderate-intensity trials ( P ≥ 0.078). CONCLUSIONS: The lack of difference in fatigability between the trials at 70% and 90% GET, coupled with the greater fatigability at 110% relative to 90% GET, shows that exceeding the moderate- to heavy-intensity boundary has implications for performance fatigability, while also impairing maximal exercise performance capacity.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".