↓ Skip to main content

Cardio-pulmonary responses to incremental eccentric and concentric cycling tests to task failure

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Applied Physiology, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
Cardio-pulmonary responses to incremental eccentric and concentric cycling tests to task failure
Published in
European Journal of Applied Physiology, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00421-018-3826-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcin Lipski, Chris R. Abbiss, Kazunori Nosaka

Abstract

This study compared cardio-pulmonary responses between incremental concentric and eccentric cycling tests, and examined factors affecting the maximal eccentric cycling capacity. On separate days, nine men and two women (32.6 ± 9.4 years) performed an upright seated concentric (CON) and an eccentric (ECC) cycling test, which started at 75 W and increased 25 W min-1until task failure. Gas exchange, heart rate (HR) and power output were continuously recorded during the tests. Participants also performed maximal voluntary contractions of the quadriceps (MVC), squat and countermovement jumps. Peak power output was 53% greater (P < 0.001, g = 1.77) for ECC (449 ± 115 W) than CON (294 ± 61 W), but peak oxygen consumption was 43% lower (P < 0.001, g = 2.18) for ECC (30.6 ± 5.6 ml kg min-1) than CON (43.9 ± 6.9 ml kg min-1). Maximal HR was not different between ECC (175 ± 20 bpm) and CON (182 ± 13 bpm), but the increase in HR relative to oxygen consumption was 33% greater (P = 0.01) during ECC than CON. Moderate to strong correlations (P < 0.05) were observed between ECC peak power output and CON peak power (r = 0.84), peak oxygen consumption (r = 0.54) and MVC (r = 0.53), while no significant relationships were observed between ECC peak power output and squat as well as countermovement jump heights. Unexpectedly, maximal HR was similar between CON and ECC. Although ECC power output can be predicted from CON peak power output, an incremental eccentric cycling test performed after 3-6 familiarisation sessions may be useful in programming ECC training with healthy and accustomed individuals.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Student > Postgraduate 6 12%
Professor 5 10%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 12 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 18 37%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Unspecified 2 4%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 16 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 February 2018.
All research outputs
#15,175,718
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#2,874
of 4,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,096
of 344,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#43
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,345 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.