Leukocytes and lactate responses to cycling and running at the same target heart rate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Heart Rate (HR) is widely used for erobic exercise intensity prescriptions and/or studies of exercise training. It is often assumed that exercising at a given HR results in similar physiological response, regardless of exercise modality. This study aimed to gauge cellular immune mobilization to submaximal exercise at a given target HR on a cycle ergometer (CE) and treadmill (TM). Thirteen healthy male adults (23.2 ± 3.5 y.o) completed 4 laboratory visits. Participants performed two graded exercise tests to exhaustion on CE and TM and two 30‐min constant exercise challenges at 70% HR reserve on CE or TM in random order. Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) was recorded every 5 min, and blood was drawn before and after exercise to measure leukocytes subpopulation levels, lactate, and IL‐6. HR was successfully “clamped” during the exercise in CE and TM (CE 156.7 ± 1.1; TM 159.3 ± 1.6 bpm). Cycling was perceived as more strenuous than running and was accompanied by a greater increase in lactate post‐exercise ( p < 0.0001; 6.2 ± 0.3 vs. 2.9 ± 0.3 mmol/L). IL‐6 and leukocytes subpopulations were significantly elevated post‐exercise ( p < 0.003) with no difference between exercise modalities (monocytes; CE 57.6% TM 61.2%, granulocytes; CE 41.37%, TM 50.1%, lymphocytes; CE 91.03%, TM 78.8%). The findings revealed that HR is not sufficient in and of itself to fully assess the metabolic stress associated with a given exercise modality. However, despite different metabolic and subjective stress, the IL‐6 and leukocyte counts relative changes were similar in the two modalities.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".