The Accumulation of Performance Fatigue and Perceptual Responses across Consecutive High-Intensity Interval and Constant-Load Cycling Sessions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In numerous sport and occupational settings, individuals often need to perform multiple exercise sessions in 1 d or across consecutive days, yet performance and perceptual responses to such exercise paradigms are unclear. PURPOSE: This study investigated performance fatigue and perceptual responses to repeated, consecutive sessions of high-intensity interval (HIIT) and constant-work rate (CWR) cycling bouts performed within 24 h. METHODS: Seventeen healthy adults (nine females, aged 25 ± 6 yr) exercised in the morning, same afternoon, and following morning. Sessions consisted of work- and duration-matched HIIT (2 min at 80% peak power output (PPO) interspersed by 2 min at 25% PPO) and CWR cycling (38 min at 54% PPO). A time-to-task failure (TTF) trial at 80% PPO was completed followed by both morning sessions. Neuromuscular assessments, including isometric knee extension maximal voluntary contraction coupled with superimposed and potentiated (Q tw ) twitches, elicited via electrical stimuli to the femoral nerve, were performed before and after workouts, and after the TTF. Blood lactate and perceptual responses were also measured. RESULTS: TTF trials were longer following CWR than HIIT ( P < 0.001). Across consecutive sessions, voluntary activation remained depressed, and this was accompanied by progressive impairments in cycling TTF following CWR ( P = 0.006). Conversely, maximal voluntary contraction and Q tw returned to baseline values by the beginning of each HIIT and CWR session. Perceived effort and dyspnea were higher in HIIT but were not exacerbated across sessions. CONCLUSIONS: Although declined voluntary and evoked force-generating capacities did not persist in this study, consecutive exercise could compromise the recovery of voluntary activation and endurance performance.
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".