Neuromuscular Fatigue Induced by Cycling at a Fixed Level of Perceived Effort: Effects of Different Purported Hypoxic Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We compared neuromuscular fatigue induced by cycling at a fixed perceived effort in normoxic condition (NOR) and three purported hypoxia modalities: systemic hypoxia (SyH, FiO2 = 0.13), blood flow restriction (BFR, 50% arterial occlusion pressure) and airflow restriction mask (ARM, calibrated to ~3500 m). Seventeen healthy young participants cycled for 20 min at a self‐selected power output corresponding to a hard effort (15/20, Borg scale) on an innovative cycle ergometer allowing immediate neuromuscular evaluation. Isometric maximum voluntary contraction of the knee extensors (IMVC), central (voluntary activation, VA) and peripheral fatigue were measured before and every 5 min during cycling. Power output, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), quadriceps oxygenation (near‐infrared spectroscopy, TSI) and pain were assessed throughout cycling. Power output was lower in BFR and SyH compared to NOR and ARM and was lower in BFR compared to SyH. SpO2 was reduced only in SyH (mean 77% ± 4%). In all conditions, IMVC decreased from minute 5 and subsequently plateaued (~−10% to −20%), except in BFR, wherein it further declined to −40% ± 14% at minute 20 in the presence of lowered VA and exacerbated muscle pain compared to other conditions. Muscle TSI was further decreased in SyH compared to other conditions. Our results confirm the inability of ARM to induce hypoxia. Compared to other conditions, BFR showed a greater reduction in IMVC and VA, in the presence of a higher quadriceps pain and no greater muscle deoxygenation. These results underline the psychophysiological impact of quadriceps pain on both maximal and submaximal motor output.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".