| Title |
Topical application of cream containing nonivamide and nicoboxil does not enhance the performance of experienced cyclists during a 4-km time-trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Applied Physiology, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00421-016-3357-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christoph Zinner, Hans-Christer Holmberg, Billy Sperlich |
| Abstract |
Topical application of nonivamide-nicoboxil cream to resting legs has been shown to enhance the level of oxygenated haemoglobin in leg muscles 15 min later. Here, we examined whether such application improves the performance of experienced cyclists in a subsequent 4-km time-trial. Nine male cyclists [26 ± 8 years; 176 ± 9 cm; 73.5 ± 12.8 kg; peak oxygen uptake: 50.7 ± 4.0 mL min(-1) kg(-1) (mean ± SD)] performed three 4-km time-trials on an ergometer with either topical application of nonivamide-nicoboxil cream (CREAM) or cream without active components (SHAM) to both their thigh muscles or no application (CONTROL). Only the skin temperature immediately before and after the time-trial was higher with cream than SHAM and CONTROL (best p < 0.001, best d = 1.16). All other parameters evaluated, i.e., the average power output during the time-trial (p > 0.05, best d = 0.08), the tissue saturation index of the m. vastus lateralis (p > 0.05, best d = 0.57), cardiac output, heart rate, oxygen uptake, blood lactate concentration, and perceived exertion (p > 0.05, best d = 1.1) were similar under all three conditions. Our present findings reveal that topical application of cream containing nonivamide and nicoboxil to the thighs of cyclists prior to a 4-km time-trial does not improve their power output, saturation of the m. vastus lateralis with oxygen, oxygen uptake, heart rate, cardiac parameters, or perceived level of exertion. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 30% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 11% |
| Researcher | 2 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 4% |
| Professor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 9 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 7 | 26% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 10 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 29 March 2016.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#3,712
of 4,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,236
of 314,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#34
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 14.6. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 314,381 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.