Acute performance fatigability following continuous versus intermittent cycling protocols is not proportional to total work done
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Classical training theory postulates that performance fatigability following a training session should be proportional to the total work done (TWD); however, this notion has been questioned. This study investigated indices of performance and perceived fatigability after primary sessions of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and constant work rate (CWR) cycling, each followed by a cycling time-to-task failure (TTF) bout. On separate days, 16 participants completed an incremental cycling test, and, in a randomized order, (i) a TTF trial at 80% of peak power output (PPO), (ii) an HIIT session, and (iii) a CWR session, both of which were immediately followed by a TTF trial at 80% PPO. Central and peripheral aspects of performance fatigability were measured using interpolated twitch technique, and perceptual measures were assessed prior to and following the HIIT and CWR trials, and again following the TTF trial. Despite TWD being less following HIIT ( P = 0.029), subsequent TTF trial was an average of 125 s shorter following HIIT versus CWR ( P < 0.001), and this was accompanied by greater impairments in voluntary and electrically evoked forces ( P < 0.001), as well as exacerbated perceptual measures ( P < 0.001); however, there were no differences in any fatigue measure following the TTF trial ( P ≥ 0.149). There were strong correlations between the decline in TTF and indices of peripheral ( r = 0.70) and perceived fatigability ( r ≥ 0.80) measured at the end of HIIT and CWR. These results underscore the dissociation between TWD and performance fatigability and highlight the importance of peripheral components of fatigability in limiting endurance performance during high-intensity cycling exercise.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".