ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2015
Influence of acute passive stretching on the oxygen uptake vs work rate slope during an incremental cycle test.
Article in European journal of applied physiology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of the study was to investigate the effects of acute passive stretching on O2 uptake (VO2) vs work rate slope during a continuous incremental ramp exercise.
methodsOn two different occasions, eight participants (age 23 ± 3 years; stature 1.71 ± 0.10 m; body mass 68 ± 8 kg; mean ± SD) performed two maximum incremental ramp tests on a cycle ergometer (25 W/min), with and without pre-exercise stretching. During tests, we measured VO2 and other metabolic and cardiorespiratory parameters on a breath-by-breath basis. The VO2 vs work rate slopes were calculated below (S 1) and above (S 2) the first ventilatory threshold (VET1).
resultsWith stretching: (1) peak VO2 did not change, while peak work rate decreased (P < 0.05, ES = -0.41; CI -1.40/-0.58); (2) in spite of a similar S 1, S 2 was steeper by about 11 % (P < 0.05; ES = 0.62; CI -0.38/-1.62).
conclusionsStretching reduced peak work rate and altered the [Formula: see text] vs work rate relationship above VET1 (S 2), without affecting peak VO2. The present findings have practical implications, questioning the use of stretching manoeuvres especially when peak work rate plays a key role in exercise performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26433598What 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.