ArticleJournal of sports science & medicine2005
Physiological responses to 90 s all out isokinetic sprint cycling in boys and men.
Article in Journal of sports science & medicine, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Critical power in adolescents: physiological bases and assessment using all-out exercise.European journal of applied physiology · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the VO2 kinetic and mechanical power responses of boys and men to all out 90 s sprint cycle exercise. Eight boys (14.6 ± 0.3 y) and eight men (33.8 ± 6.5 y) volunteered to participate and completed a ramp test (to determine VO2peak and ventilatory threshold, VT) and then on subsequent days, two 90 s all out cycle sprints on an isokinetic cycle ergometer. During each test, breath-by-breath pulmonary gas exchange and power output were measured. Parameters from the power output profiles were derived from the average response of the two tests including peak power (PP, highest power output in 1 s), end power (EP60-90, power over the last 30 s), and mean power over the 90 s (MP90). Independent pairwise and dependent t-tests were used to compare the data from tests between adults and boys subject groups. Significant differences between adults and boys were found for absolute PP (881.4 ± 60.7 vs 533.6 ± 50.7 W), EP60-90 (288.6 ± 25.7 vs 134.3 ± 17.6 W) and MP90 (434.5 ± 27.4 vs 238.4 ± 17.3 W, p =0.001) respectively. Relative to body mass significant differences between adults and boys were found for EP60-90, MP90 and total work (p < 0.002). The boys attained 90 s VO2 values that were closer to VO2peak than their adult counterparts (93.3 ± 2.6 vs 84.9 ± 2.3 %, p = 0.03). They also demonstrated faster VO2 kinetics (10.8 ± 1.5 vs 17.6 ± 1.0 s, p < 0.01). In conclusion, during all out 90 s cycle sprinting boys were able to attain VO2 values that were closer to VO2peak and a faster time constant than adult men. These findings provide insight into the contribution and speed of response of the aerobic system during an 'anaerobic' test. Key PointsThe results of this study confirm the significant contributions of the aerobic energy systems during so called 'anaerobic tests'.Boys were able to attain VO2 values from an all out 90 s sprint cycle that were closer to their aerobic VO2 peak test than adults. More detailed studies are required to investigate the limiting factors that prevent VO2 peak being reached in an all out sprint cycle.All out tests of a duration > 30 s and coupled with gas and power analyses offer paediatric physiologists considerable scope to examine the contributions of the anaerobic and aerobic energy systems until more ethically viable methods are found.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24501558PMC3899660W2124669718What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.