Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42667324›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2026

Time-resolved energy-share reconstruction of individual glycolytic flux kinetics reveals duration-dependent bias in elite sprint cycling.

Katharina Dunst, Benedikt Meixner

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of applied physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

2 authors.

Katharina DunstInstitute for Applied Training Science (IAT), Department of Endurance Sports, Leipzig, Germany.
Benedikt MeixnerIntegrative and Experimental Exercise Science & Training, Department of Sport Science, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany. benedikt.meixner@fau.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7044-9426

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMaximal lactate accumulation rate (vLamax) is commonly used as a surrogate of anaerobic glycolytic power. Conventional protocols calculate vLamax as a mean rate over a fixed sprint window after subtracting an alactic phase, even though glycolytic flux rises, peaks, and declines within seconds. Fixed-duration protocols may therefore underestimate the instantaneous peak rate.

methodsSeventeen elite track cyclists performed 12 s and 60 s maximal isokinetic sprints with continuous power, gas exchange, near-infrared spectroscopy, and blood lactate. Total metabolic energy (from dynamic gross efficiency), aerobic energy, and phosphocreatine energy were reconstructed, and the glycolytic residual gave vLa(t), vLamax, and time to peak.

resultsThe indirect assessment yielded higher vLamax than the gold standard (0.91 ± 0.18 vs. 0.82 ± 0.17 mmol/L/s; p < 0.001), while predicted 12 s lactate accumulation matched measured values (7.67 ± 1.77 vs. 7.58 ± 1.60 mmol/L; p = 0.464). Peak vLa occurred at 9.1 ± 1.4 s, before the 12 s endpoint.

conclusionA single maximal sprint suffices to reconstruct the individual glycolytic flux trajectory (its onset, peak, and post-peak decline), and the cumulative lactate accumulation was independently validated against a separate 12 s sprint. On this basis, fixed-duration protocols appear to underestimate instantaneous peak vLamax by averaging across the post-peak decline (mean bias ~ 10%). Durations around 9-10 s may therefore offer a physiologically grounded compromise for vLamax assessment in elite cycling.

Indexed as

CyclingEnergy metabolismExercise testingLactate kineticsSprint performance

Identifiers

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.