ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2014
The influence of aerobic fitness on the recovery of peak power output.
Article 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aims of this study were to evaluate the recovery kinetics of peak power output (PPO) following a maximal sprint, and to evaluate the influence of aerobic fitness on that recovery process.
methodsOn separate occasions, 16 well-trained men (age: 21 ± 3 years; height: 1.84 ± 0.05 m; and body mass: 78.8 ± 7.8 kg) performed a 30 s maximal sprint on a cycle ergometer, followed by a predetermined stationary rest period (5, 10, 20, 40, 80, and 160 s) and a subsequent 5 s sprint to determine PPO recovery kinetics. On another occasion, [Formula: see text] was monitored during recovery from a 30 s sprint to provide a comparison with the recovery of PPO. Finally, subjects completed a [Formula: see text] test to evaluate the influence of aerobic fitness on the recovery of PPO.
resultsDespite following similar time courses (F = 0.36, p = 0.558), and being well described by double-exponential models, the kinetic parameters of PPO and [Formula: see text] in recovery were significantly different (p < 0.05). There was no significant relationship (r = 0.15; p = 0.578) between [Formula: see text] and the time to achieve 50 % recovery of PPO. Moreover, there was no difference (p = 0.61) between the recovery kinetics of participants classified according to their [Formula: see text] (59.4 ± 1.3 vs 48.5 ± 2.2 ml·kg(-1)·min(-1)).
conclusionDespite similar overall recovery kinetics, [Formula: see text] and PPO show differences in key model parameters. Moreover, the recovery of PPO does not appear to be affected by aerobic fitness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25107646What 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.