Trial reportPloS one2015
The Effects of Different Training Backgrounds on VO2 Responses to All-Out and Supramaximal Constant-Velocity Running Bouts.
Trial report in PloS one, 2015. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To investigate the impact of different training backgrounds on pulmonary oxygen uptake (V̇O2) responses during all-out and supramaximal constant-velocity running exercises, nine sprinters (SPRs) and eight endurance runners (ENDs) performed an incremental test for maximal aerobic velocity (MAV) assessment and two supramaximal running exercises (1-min all-out test and constant-velocity exercise). The V̇O2 responses were continuously determined during the tests (K4b2, Cosmed, Italy). A mono-exponential function was used to describe the V̇O2 onset kinetics during constant-velocity test at 110%MAV, while during 1-min all-out test the peak of V̇O2 (V̇O2peak), the time to achieve the V̇O2peak (tV̇O2peak) and the V̇O2 decrease at last of the test was determined to characterize the V̇O2 response. During constant-velocity exercise, ENDs had a faster V̇O2 kinetics than SPRs (12.7 ± 3.0 vs. 19.3 ± 5.6 s; p < 0.001). During the 1-min all-out test, ENDs presented slower tV̇O2peak than SPRs (40.6 ± 6.8 and 28.8 ± 6.4 s, respectively; p = 0.002) and had a similar V̇O2peak relative to the V̇O2max (88 ± 8 and 83 ± 6%, respectively; p = 0.157). Finally, SPRs was the only group that presented a V̇O2 decrease in the last half of the test (-1.8 ± 2.3 and 3.5 ± 2.3 ml.kg-1.min-1, respectively; p < 0.001). In summary, SPRs have a faster V̇O2 response when maximum intensity is required and a high maximum intensity during all-out running exercise seems to lead to a higher decrease in V̇O2 in the last part of the exercise.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.