MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Hypoperfusion At Submaximal Power Outputs In Supine Vs Upright Exercise: Contributor To Reduced VO2 Max?

2022· article· en· W4294796167 on OpenAlexaff
Taylor Liu, P Drouin, Nicholas Preobrazenski, Jacob T. Bonafiglia, Hashim Islam, Brendon J. Gurd, Michael E. Tschakovsky

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupine positionHeart rateCardiologyMedicineOxygenationVentilation (architecture)Internal medicineVO2 maxAnaerobic exercisePerfusionVastus lateralis muscleAnesthesiaExercise physiologyBlood pressurePhysical therapySkeletal muscle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) is reduced in supine vs upright incremental cycling exercise. This could be due to a reduction only in peak oxygen delivery (O2del) with lower perfusion pressure as compensatory vasodilation preserves submaximal O2del. Alternatively, compromised O2del is already manifest during submaximal increments in power output (PO) and increases the rate of fatigue progression. PURPOSE: We tested the hypothesis that compromised O2del at submaximal power outputs increased rate of fatigue progression, reducing VO2max. METHODS: 14 untrained university aged male participants performed a step-wise incremental cycling protocol (16 Watt increments every 3 minutes) to volitional exhaustion in supine and upright. Vastus lateralis muscle oxygenation (near infrared spectroscopy), muscle activation (electromyography), gas exchange and ventilation (Moxus Metabolic Cart), venous blood lactate (finger prick) were measured. Data in mean ±SD. RESULTS: At exhaustion VO2max (ml/min/kg) peak power output (PO; Watts), venous blood lactate ([La-]v; mmol/L), Ventilation (VE; L/min) and heart rate (HR: bpm) were all decreased supine vs. upright (VO2max 35.0 ±3.7 vs. 41.7±5.7; PO 142 ±32 vs. 166 ±41; [La-]v 6.5 ±2.6 vs. 9.6 ±1.3; VE 98.6 ±17.7 vs. 127.4 ±26.8; HR 171 ±12 vs. 184 ±12, All P<0.05), but vastus lateralis oxygenated hemoglobin (O2HbVL; % peak near infrared spectroscopy signal) and muscle activity (EMG; %maximal activation) were not (O2Hb 0.27 ±0.05 vs. 0.15 ±0.10; EMG 72.6 ±24.3 vs. 88.3 ±61.2, All P>0.05). In contrast, at ventilatory threshold (Tvent) O2HbVL was reduced in supine vs. upright (0.24 ±0.21 vs. 0.44 ±0.10) while EMG was not different (P = 0.51). CONCLUSION: In supine vs. upright, reduced oxygenation at Tvent but not at exhaustion, and reduced PO, [La-]v, HR and VE at exhaustion, with no difference in EMG, is consistent with accelerated submaximal hypoperfusion-mediated fatigue compromising VO2max.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

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)0.0030.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.252 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicCardiovascular and exercise physiology→French-language works237,207→