Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24986693›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of applied physiology2014

Maximal oxygen consumption in healthy humans: theories and facts.

Guido Ferretti

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of applied physiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Lessons from history forFrontiers in physiology · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Guido FerrettiDépartement des Neurosciences Fondamentales, Université de Genève, 1 Rue Michel Servet, 1211, Geneva 4, Switzerland, guido.ferretti@unige.ch.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article reviews the concept of maximal oxygen consumption ([Formula: see text]) from the perspective of multifactorial models of [Formula: see text] limitation. First, I discuss procedural aspects of [Formula: see text] measurement: the implications of ramp protocols are analysed within the theoretical work of Morton. Then I analyse the descriptive physiology of [Formula: see text], evidencing the path that led to the view of monofactorial cardiovascular or muscular [Formula: see text] limitation. Multifactorial models, generated by the theoretical work of di Prampero and Wagner around the oxygen conductance equation, represented a radical change of perspective. These models are presented in detail and criticized with respect to the ensuing experimental work. A synthesis between them is proposed, demonstrating how much these models coincide and converge on the same conclusions. Finally, I discuss the cases of hypoxia and bed rest, the former as an example of the pervasive effects of the shape of the oxygen equilibrium curve, the latter as a neat example of adaptive changes concerning the entire respiratory system. The conclusion is that the concept of cardiovascular [Formula: see text] limitation is reinforced by multifactorial models, since cardiovascular oxygen transport provides most of the [Formula: see text] limitation, at least in normoxia. However, the same models show that the role of peripheral resistances is significant and cannot be neglected. The role of peripheral factors is greater the smaller is the active muscle mass. In hypoxia, the intervention of lung resistances as limiting factors restricts the role played by cardiovascular and peripheral factors.

Indexed as

Oxygen ConsumptionExerciseHumans

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.