The effect of body position on cardiovascular, skeletal muscle and ventilatory responses to submaximal cycling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The completion of exercise in different body positions can impact the function of various components of the oxygen delivery pathway; however, the effect of the haemodynamic conditions induced by a semi‐upright body position on the integrative physiological response to exercise is poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to explore the effect of a semi‐upright body position on cardiac output (CO), vastus lateralis oxygen saturation (), oxygen consumption () and ratings of perceived exertion (Borg RPE) during submaximal cycling. Twenty healthy individuals (22 ± 3 years, 50% female) each completed alternating 5‐min bouts of submaximal upright and semi‐upright (40° incline) cycling at 50 and 100 W. CO, , and RPE were assessed at rest and at each exercise intensity during steady state. There was a main effect of intensity on the increase in CO, , and RPE (all P < 0.001). In a semi‐upright position, the increase in CO (7.9 ± 2.8 vs. 6.4 ± 2.6 L/min, P < 0.001), RPE (median (interquartile range): 11 (9–13) vs. 10 (8–12), P = 0.013) and the decrease in (−38 ± 23 vs. −21% ± 18%, P < 0.001) were greater than upright, while the increase in was attenuated (1.030 ± 0.130 vs. 1.154 ± 0.165 L/min, P < 0.001). These results suggest that while a semi‐upright body position produces elevations in CO, these elevations do not seem to perfuse the active skeletal muscle. This may explain the elevation in RPE despite a blunting in the increase in . Further work is required to understand the effects of a semi‐upright exercise position on skeletal muscle activation and lower limb blood flow.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".