↓ Skip to main content

Tolerance to high-intensity intermittent running exercise: do oxygen uptake kinetics really matter?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
166 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.
Title
Tolerance to high-intensity intermittent running exercise: do oxygen uptake kinetics really matter?
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2012.00406
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin Buchheit, Karim Hader, Alberto Mendez-Villanueva

Abstract

We examined the respective associations between aerobic fitness ([Formula: see text]max), metabolic control ([Formula: see text] kinetics) and locomotor function, and various physiological responses to high-intensity intermittent (HIT) running exercise in team sport players. Eleven players (30.5 ± 3.6 year) performed a series of tests to determine their [Formula: see text]max and the associated velocity (v[Formula: see text]max), maximal sprinting speed (MSS) and [Formula: see text] kinetics at exercise onset in the moderate and severe intensity domains, and during recovery ([Formula: see text] SEV). Cardiorespiratory variables, oxygenation and electromyography of lower limbs muscles and blood lactate ([La]) concentration were collected during a standardized HIT protocol consisting in 8 sets of 10, 4-s runs. During HIT, four players could not complete more than two sets; the others finished at least five sets. Metabolic responses to the two first sets of HIT were negatively correlated with [Formula: see text]max, v[Formula: see text]max, and [Formula: see text] SEV (r = -0.6 to -0.8), while there was no clear relationship with the other variables. [Formula: see text], oxygenation and [La] responses to the first two sets of HIT were the only variables that differed between the players which could complete at least five sets or those who could not complete more than two sets. Players that managed to run at least five sets presented, in comparison with the others, greater v[Formula: see text]max [ES = +1.5(0.4; 2.7), MSS(ES = +1.0(0.1; 1.9)] and training load [ES = +3.8 (2.8; 4.9)]. There was no clear between-group difference in any of the [Formula: see text] kinetics measures [e.g., ES = -0.1(-1.4; 1.2) for [Formula: see text] SEV]. While [Formula: see text]max and v[Formula: see text]max are likely determinant for HIT tolerance, the importance of [Formula: see text] kinetics as assessed in this study appears limited in the present population. Knowing the main factors influencing tolerance to HIT running exercise may assist practitioners in personalizing training interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 1%
Spain 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 162 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 19%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Researcher 11 7%
Student > Postgraduate 10 6%
Other 27 16%
Unknown 38 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 91 55%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 5%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 9 5%
Unknown 37 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 25 August 2022.
All research outputs
#3,065,701
of 24,294,766 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#1,636
of 14,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,057
of 251,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#29
of 308 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,294,766 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,898 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
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 251,782 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 308 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.