MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318920542 · doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000003097

Shorter High-Intensity Cycling Intervals Reduce Performance and Perceived Fatigability at Work-Matched but Not Task Failure

2022· article· en· W4318920542 on OpenAlexaff
Zachary J. McClean, Danilo Iannetta, Martin J. MacInnis, Saied Jalal Aboodarda

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsometric exerciseHigh-intensity interval trainingCardiorespiratory fitnessCyclingInterval trainingMedicinePhysical therapyWork outputCardiologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The intensity, duration, and distribution of work and recovery phases during high-intensity interval training (HIIT) modulate metabolic perturbations during exercise and subsequently influence the development of performance fatigability and exercise tolerance. This study aimed to characterize neuromuscular, perceptual, and cardiorespiratory responses to work-to-rest ratio-matched HIIT protocols differing in work and rest interval duration. METHODS: Twelve healthy individuals (six women) first completed a ramp incremental test to determine 90% of peak power output, and then in three randomized visits, they completed three cycling protocols to task failure at 90% of peak power output: (i) 3- to 3-min work-to-passive rest ratio HIIT (HIIT 3min ), (ii) 1- to 1-min work-to-passive rest ratio HIIT (HIIT 1min ), and (iii) constant load (CL). Interpolated twitch technique, including maximal voluntary isometric knee extensions and femoral nerve electrical stimuli, was performed at baseline, every 6 min of work, and task failure. Perceptual and cardiorespiratory responses were recorded every 3 min and continuously across the exercises, respectively. RESULTS: The work completed during HIIT 1min (8447 ± 5124 kJ) was considerably greater than HIIT 3min (1930 ± 712 kJ) and CL (1076 ± 356) ( P < 0.001). At work-matched, HIIT 1min resulted in a lesser decline in maximal voluntary contraction and twitch force compared with HIIT 3min and CL ( P < 0.001). Perceived effort, pain, and dyspnea were least in HIIT 1min and HIIT 3min compared with CL ( P < 0.001). At task failure, HIIT 1min resulted in less voluntary activation than HIIT 3min ( P = 0.010) and CL ( P = 0.043), and engendered less twitch force decline than CL ( P = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the mitigated physiological and perceptual responses during shorter work periods (HIIT 1min ) enhance exercise tolerance in comparison to longer work intervals at the same intensity (HIIT 3min , CL).

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207