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 |
Hypoxic Repeat Sprint Training Improves Rugby Player's Repeated Sprint but Not Endurance Performance
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Physiology, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fphys.2017.00024 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael J. Hamlin, Peter D. Olsen, Helen C. Marshall, Catherine A. Lizamore, Catherine A. Elliot |
| Abstract |
This study aims to investigate the performance changes in 19 well-trained male rugby players after repeat-sprint training (six sessions of four sets of 5 × 5 s sprints with 25 s and 5 min of active recovery between reps and sets, respectively) in either normobaric hypoxia (HYP; n = 9; FIO2 = 14.5%) or normobaric normoxia (NORM; n = 10; FIO2 = 20.9%). Three weeks after the intervention, 2 additional repeat-sprint training sessions in hypoxia (FIO2 = 14.5%) was investigated in both groups to gauge the efficacy of using "top-up" sessions for previously hypoxic-trained subjects and whether a small hypoxic dose would be beneficial for the previously normoxic-trained group. Repeated sprint (8 × 20 m) and Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Level 1 (YYIR1) performances were tested twice at baseline (Pre 1 and Pre 2) and weekly after (Post 1-3) the initial intervention (intervention 1) and again weekly after the second "top-up" intervention (Post 4-5). After each training set, heart rate, oxygen saturation, and rate of perceived exertion were recorded. Compared to baseline (mean of Pre 1 and Pre 2), both the hypoxic and normoxic groups similarly lowered fatigue over the 8 sprints 1 week after the intervention (Post 1: -1.8 ± 1.6%, -1.5 ± 1.4%, mean change ± 90% CI in HYP and NORM groups, respectively). However, from Post 2 onwards, only the hypoxic group maintained the performance improvement compared to baseline (Post 2: -2.1 ± 1.8%, Post 3: -2.3 ± 1.7%, Post 4: -1.9 ± 1.8%, and Post 5: -1.2 ± 1.7%). Compared to the normoxic group, the hypoxic group was likely to have substantially less fatigue at Post 3-5 (-2.0 ± 2.4%, -2.2 ± 2.4%, -1.6 ± 2.4% Post 3, Post 4, Post 5, respectively). YYIR1 performances improved throughout the recovery period in both groups (13-37% compared to baseline) with unclear differences found between groups. The addition of two sessions of "top-up" training after intervention 1, had little effect on either group. Repeat-sprint training in hypoxia for six sessions increases repeat sprint ability but not YYIR1 performance in well-trained rugby players. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 6 | 35% |
| United States | 3 | 18% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 6% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 6% |
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| Taiwan | 1 | 6% |
| Australia | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 3 | 18% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 59% |
| Scientists | 6 | 35% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 103 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 13% |
| Researcher | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 14 | 13% |
| Unknown | 38 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 42 | 40% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 10% |
| Unknown | 39 | 38% |
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 13 October 2023.
All research outputs
#3,229,164
of 24,616,908 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#1,746
of 15,128 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,273
of 429,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#40
of 232 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,616,908 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,128 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 429,100 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 232 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.