Examining placebo effects after a 3-week repeated-sprint training program under hypoxic conditions in recreationally trained subjects: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Repeated-sprint training in hypoxia (RSH) has been suggested to significantly enhance anaerobic performance. However, the widespread belief in the benefits of altitude training raises questions about potential placebo effect. The aim of this study was thus to investigate the physiological and placebo effects of normobaric hypoxia combined with repeated-sprint training on performance. Twenty-nine moderately trained participants were randomly assigned to normoxia (repeated-sprint in normoxia (RSN)), placebo (repeated-sprint in normoxia with placebo setup (RSN-P)), or hypoxia (RSH) groups. Participants in RSN-P group were led to believe they were training at simulated altitude (between 2500 and 3500 m), while participants in the RSN and RSH groups knew they were training at sea level and at altitude, respectively. Repeated-sprint training involved six cycling sessions over 3 weeks, consisting of three sets of 8 × 6 s sprint with 24 s of recovery. There was no difference in the estimation of the altitude level to which participants from the RSN-P and RSH groups thought they had been exposed. There was a main significant effect of training on mean power output during Wingate (+7.9%; p < 0.001; ηp² = 0.47) and repeated-sprint ability tests (+7.7%; p < 0.001; ηp² = 0.55). However, contrary to our hypotheses, the enhancement among the three groups did not differ. The lack of greater improvement in the RSH group compared to the other groups raises questions about the added value of hypoxia in these conditions. In conclusion, neither real nor perceived hypoxia enhanced training adaptations following repeated-sprint sessions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".