↓ Skip to main content

Neuro-mechanical determinants of repeated treadmill sprints - Usefulness of an “hypoxic to normoxic recovery” approach

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, September 2015
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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
29 X users

Readers on

mendeley
60 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
Neuro-mechanical determinants of repeated treadmill sprints - Usefulness of an “hypoxic to normoxic recovery” approach
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, September 2015
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2015.00260
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olivier Girard, Franck Brocherie, Jean-Benoit Morin, Grégoire P. Millet

Abstract

To improve our understanding of the limiting factors during repeated sprinting, we manipulated hypoxia severity during an initial set and examined the effects on performance and associated neuro-mechanical alterations during a subsequent set performed in normoxia. On separate days, 13 active males performed eight 5-s sprints (recovery = 25 s) on an instrumented treadmill in either normoxia near sea-level (SL; FiO2 = 20.9%), moderate (MH; FiO2 = 16.8%) or severe normobaric hypoxia (SH; FiO2 = 13.3%) followed, 6 min later, by four 5-s sprints (recovery = 25 s) in normoxia. Throughout the first set, along with distance covered [larger sprint decrement score in SH (-8.2%) compared to SL (-5.3%) and MH (-7.2%); P < 0.05], changes in contact time, step frequency and root mean square activity (surface electromyography) of the quadriceps (Rectus femoris muscle) in SH exceeded those in SL and MH (P < 0.05). During first sprint of the subsequent normoxic set, the distance covered (99.6, 96.4, and 98.3% of sprint 1 in SL, MH, and SH, respectively), the main kinetic (mean vertical, horizontal, and resultant forces) and kinematic (contact time and step frequency) variables as well as surface electromyogram of quadriceps and plantar flexor muscles were fully recovered, with no significant difference between conditions. Despite differing hypoxic severity levels during sprints 1-8, performance and neuro-mechanical patterns did not differ during the four sprints of the second set performed in normoxia. In summary, under the circumstances of this study (participant background, exercise-to-rest ratio, hypoxia exposure), sprint mechanical performance and neural alterations were largely influenced by the hypoxia severity in an initial set of repeated sprints. However, hypoxia had no residual effect during a subsequent set performed in normoxia. Hence, the recovery of performance and associated neuro-mechanical alterations was complete after resting for 6 min near sea level, with a similar fatigue pattern across conditions during subsequent repeated sprints in normoxia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
France 1 2%
Unknown 57 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 18%
Researcher 10 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Student > Master 4 7%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 15 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 34 57%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 17 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 September 2020.
All research outputs
#2,162,962
of 25,208,845 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#1,203
of 15,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,077
of 281,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#7
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,208,845 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,497 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 281,335 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 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 93% of its contemporaries.