ArticleFrontiers in physiology2025
Acute neuromuscular and cardiovascular effects of varying relative loads in cross-training modalities.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2025. 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
Training structures such as every minute on minute (EMOM), as many repetitions as possible (AMRAP), and rounds for time (RFT) have gained popularity for improving sport performance and general health. However, limited research exists on how different relative loads affect neuromuscular and cardiorespiratory responses. This study aimed to compare acute effects on heart rate (HR), mean propulsive velocity (MPV), velocity loss, and pacing in participants performing AMRAP, EMOM, and RFT using the same absolute but varying relative loads. Twenty-five participants with over a year of training experience in these structures performed squats, pull-ups, and shoulder press at varying relative intensities (<40%RM, 40-65%RM, and >65%RM). Results showed significant differences in MPV between modalities (p < 0.05), with RFT having higher MPV than AMRAP, especially at lower intensities (<40%RM). EMOM also had higher MPV than AMRAP, with minimal differences compared to RFT. Velocity loss patterns varied by intensity group, with AMRAP inducing higher intra- and inter-set losses than EMOM (p < 0.05). HR analysis revealed EMOM elicited the lowest HR values, followed by AMRAP and RFT, and a larger HR difference was noted in the lowest intensity group (p < 0.05). These findings suggest that prescribing relative loads, rather than absolute loads, is important for optimizing performance and managing fatigue in cross training.
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.