External mechanical efficiency across incremental VO

Kara C Hamilton, Joel E Harden, P Karissa Rein

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Current research in physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kara C HamiltonDepartment of Health and Human Performance, University of Tennessee Chattanooga, 615 McCallie Ave, Chattanooga, TN, 37403, USA.

Joel E HardenDepartment of Health and Human Performance, University of Tennessee Chattanooga, 615 McCallie Ave, Chattanooga, TN, 37403, USA.

P Karissa ReinDepartment of Health and Human Performance, University of Tennessee Chattanooga, 615 McCallie Ave, Chattanooga, TN, 37403, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background/objective: External mechanical efficiency (EME%) and ventilatory efficiency (VEF) reflect endurance performance, yet comparisons between well-trained (WT) and less-trained (LT) runners during incremental exercise are limited. This study examined stage-specific changes in EME% and VEF during a graded treadmill test and evaluated whether individuals can self-select appropriate treadmill speeds for a VO Methods: Thirty-six runners (19 WT, 17 LT) completed a Modified Astrand VO Results: EME% showed significant effects of stage and group, with a stage × group interaction (p < 0.05). WT runners demonstrated greater EME% than LT runners at higher stages (3-5; all p < 0.05). VEF differed by sex (males: 27.49 ± 4.09; females: 29.96 ± 2.92, p = 0.017) but not by training status (p = 0.48). Although self-selected starting intensities differed from recommended values (55% LT; 77.5% for WT), self-selected treadmill speeds produced group mean test durations consistent with the recommended 8-12 min duration, and all participants achieved valid VO Conclusion: The EME% advantage of trained runners is stage-dependent, emerging at higher exercise intensities. VEF appears influenced by sex rather than training status. Despite differing from previously recommended starting intensities, self-selected treadmill speeds produced valid VO

Indexed as

External mechanical efficiencyRunningSelf-pacedTraining statusVentilatory efficiencyVO2 max testing

Identifiers

PMID42620802

DOI10.1016/j.crphys.2026.100189

PMCPMC13485605

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.