ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2024
The repeated bout effect of traditional resistance training on cycling efficiency and performance.
Article in European journal of applied physiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
purposeThis study examined the repeated bout effect of two resistance training bouts on cycling efficiency and performance.
methodsTen male resistance-untrained cyclists (age 38 ± 13 years; height 180.4 ± 7.0 cm; weight 80.1 ± 10.1; kg; VO
resultsThere were significantly lower values for DOMS (p = 0.027) after Bout 2 than Bout 1. No differences were found between bouts for CK, CMJ, SJ and submaximal cycling performance. However, jump height (CMJ and SJ) submaximal cycling measures (ventilation and perceived exertion) were impaired at T24 and T48 compared to Tbase (p < 0.05). Net efficiency during submaximal cycling improved at Bout 2 (23.8 ± 1.2) than Bout 1 (24.3 ± 1.0%). There were no changes in cycling time-trial performance, although segmental differences in cadence were observed between bouts and time (i.e. Tbase vs T24 vs T48; p < 0.05).
conclusionCyclists improved their cycling efficiency from Bout 1 to Bout 2 possibly due to the repeated bout effect. However, cyclists maintained their cycling completion times during exercise-induced muscle damage (EIMD) in both resistance training bouts, possibly by altering their cycling strategies. Thus, cyclists should consider EIMD symptomatology after resistance training bouts, particularly for cycling-specific technical sessions, regardless of the repeated bout effect.
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.