↓ Skip to main content

Metabolic parameters for ramp versus step incremental cycle ergometer tests

Overview of attention for article published in Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
100 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Metabolic parameters for ramp versus step incremental cycle ergometer tests
Published in
Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, September 2012
DOI 10.1139/h2012-098
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine mean differences and the patterns of responses for oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]O(2)), heart rate (HR), and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) for ramp (15 W·min(-1)) versus step (30 W increments every 2 min) incremental cycle ergometer tests. Fourteen subjects (age and body mass of 23.2 ± 3.1 (mean ± SD ) years and 71.1 ± 10.1 kg, respectively) visited the laboratory on separate occasions. Two-way repeated measures ANOVAs with appropriate follow-up procedures, as well as paired t tests, were used to analyze the data. In addition, polynomial regression analyses were used to determine the patterns of responses for each dependent variable for the ramp and step tests. The ramp protocol resulted in lower mean [Formula: see text]O(2) and HR values at the common power outputs than the step protocol with no differences in RPE. The increased amount of work performed during the step (total work = 75.83 kJ) versus ramp (total work = 65.60 kJ) tests at the common power outputs may have contributed to the greater [Formula: see text]O(2) and HR values. The polynomial regression analyses showed that most subjects had the same patterns of responses for the ramp and step incremental tests for HR (86%) and RPE (93%) but different patterns for [Formula: see text]O(2) (71%). The findings from the present study suggested that the protocol selection for an incremental cycle ergometer test can affect the mean values for [Formula: see text]O(2) and HR, as well as the [Formula: see text]O(2) - power output relationship.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 100 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 20 20%
Student > Master 19 19%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Researcher 6 6%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 23 23%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 38 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 27 27%
Attention Score in Context

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 12 September 2012.
All research outputs
#24,611,397
of 27,348,485 outputs
Outputs from Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism
#2,222
of 2,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,022
of 192,498 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism
#22
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,348,485 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,451 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 192,498 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.