Trial reportEuropean journal of applied physiology2017
Age differences in physiological responses to self-paced and incremental [Formula: see text] testing.
Trial report in European journal of applied physiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prescribing 6-weeks of running training using parameters from a self-paced maximal oxygen uptake protocol.European journal of applied physiology · 2018Trial
- Eight Weeks of Aerobic Exercise Training Improves Fitness, Metabolic Health, Inflammation, and Intestinal Barrier Integrity in Overweight and Obese Women of Different Age Groups.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Maximal exercise outcomes with a face mask: the effects of gender and age differences on cardiorespiratory responses.Irish journal of medical science · 2022Article
- Pacing strategy during the final stage of a self-paced V̇O₂max (SPV) test does not affect maximal oxygen uptake.European journal of applied physiology · 2017Article
- Statistical model ignores 'age', products of peak Q and a-vΟ₂ difference greatly exceed V̇Ο₂max and different ergometers confound validity.European journal of applied physiology · 2017Article
- Data inconsistencies and inaccuracies combined with methodological problems render physiological interpretation suspect.European journal of applied physiology · 2017Article
- Inconsistent approach to evaluating studies and selective interpretation of data reveals lack of objectivity and undermines repeated attempts to discredit SPV.European journal of applied physiology · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA self-paced maximal exercise protocol has demonstrated higher [Formula: see text] values when compared against traditional tests. The aim was to compare physiological responses to this self-paced [Formula: see text] protocol (SPV) in comparison to a traditional ramp [Formula: see text] (RAMP) protocol in young (18-30 years) and old (50-75 years) participants.
methodsForty-four participants (22 young; 22 old) completed both protocols in a randomised, counter-balanced, crossover design. The SPV included 5 × 2 min stages, participants were able to self-regulate their power output (PO) by using incremental 'clamps' in ratings of perceived exertion. The RAMP consisted of either 15 or 20 W min
resultsExpired gases, cardiac output (Q), stroke volume (SV), muscular deoxyhaemoglobin (deoxyHb) and electromyography (EMG) at the vastus lateralis were recorded throughout. Results demonstrated significantly higher [Formula: see text] in the SPV (49.68 ± 10.26 ml kg
conclusionFindings demonstrate that the SPV produces higher [Formula: see text], peak Q and SV values in the young group. However, older participants achieved similar [Formula: see text] values in both protocols, mostly likely due to age-related differences in cardiovascular responses to incremental exercise, despite them achieving a higher physiological workload in the SPV.
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.