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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The effects of beta-alanine supplementation and high-intensity interval training on neuromuscular fatigue and muscle function
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Applied Physiology, November 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00421-008-0911-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Abbie E. Smith, Jordan R. Moon, Kristina L. Kendall, Jennifer L. Graef, Christopher M. Lockwood, Ashley A. Walter, Travis W. Beck, Joel T. Cramer, Jeffrey R. Stout |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of beta-alanine supplementation and high-intensity interval training (HIIT) on electromyographic fatigue threshold (EMG(FT)) and efficiency of electrical activity (EEA). A total of 46 men completed four, 2-min work bouts on a cycle ergometer. Using bipolar surface electrodes, the EMG amplitude was averaged and plotted over the 2-min. The resulting slopes were used to calculate EMG(FT) and EEA. Following initial testing, all participants were randomly assigned to either placebo (PL; n = 18), beta-alanine (BA; n = 18) or control groups (CON; n = 10). Following randomization, participants engaged in 6 weeks of HIIT training. Significant improvements in EMG(FT) and EEA resulted for both training groups. In conclusion, HIIT appeared to be the primary stimulus effecting EMG(FT) or EEA, suggesting adaptations from HIIT may be more influential than increasing skeletal muscle carnosine levels on delaying fatigue in recreationally active men. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 188 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 186 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 33 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 32 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 28 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 6% |
| Professor | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 43 | 23% |
| Unknown | 29 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 79 | 42% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 16 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 18 | 10% |
| Unknown | 39 | 21% |
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 19 September 2014.
All research outputs
#16,048,009
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#3,052
of 4,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,986
of 104,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#17
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 104,451 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.