↓ Skip to main content

Oxygen Uptake Kinetics Is Slower in Swimming Than Arm Cranking and Cycling during Heavy Intensity

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Oxygen Uptake Kinetics Is Slower in Swimming Than Arm Cranking and Cycling during Heavy Intensity
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, September 2017
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2017.00639
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ana Sousa, Fabio Borrani, Ferran A. Rodríguez, Grégoire P. Millet

Abstract

Oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]) kinetics has been reported to be influenced by the activity mode. However, only few studies have compared [Formula: see text]O2 kinetics between activities in the same subjects in which they were equally trained. Therefore, this study compared the [Formula: see text]O2 kinetics response to swimming, arm cranking, and cycling within the same group of subjects within the heavy exercise intensity domain. Ten trained male triathletes (age 23.2 ± 4.5 years; height 180.8 ± 8.3 cm; weight 72.3 ± 6.6 kg) completed an incremental test to exhaustion and a 6-min heavy constant-load test in the three exercise modes in random order. Gas exchange was measured by a breath-by-breath analyzer and the on-transient [Formula: see text]O2 kinetics was modeled using bi-exponential functions. [Formula: see text]O2peak was higher in cycling (65.6 ± 4.0 ml·kg(-1)·min(-1)) than in arm cranking or swimming (48.7 ± 8.0 and 53.0 ± 6.7 ml·kg(-1)·min(-1); P < 0.01), but the [Formula: see text]O2 kinetics were slower in swimming (τ1 = 31.7 ± 6.2 s) than in arm cranking (19.3 ± 4.2 s; P = 0.001) and cycling (12.4 ± 3.7 s; P = 0.001). The amplitude of the primary component was lower in both arm cranking and swimming (21.9 ± 4.7 and 28.4 ± 5.1 ml·kg(-1)·min(-1)) compared with cycling (39.4 ± 4.1 ml·kg(-1)·min(-1); P = 0.001). Although the gain of the primary component was higher in arm cranking compared with cycling (15.3 ± 4.2 and 10.7 ± 1.3 ml·min(-1)·W(-1); P = 0.02), the slow component amplitude, in both absolute and relative terms, did not differ between exercise modes. The slower [Formula: see text]O2 kinetics during heavy-intensity swimming is exercise-mode dependent. Besides differences in muscle mass and greater type II muscle fibers recruitment, the horizontal position adopted and the involvement of trunk and lower-body stabilizing muscles could be additional mechanisms that explain the differences between exercise modalities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 12%
Professor 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Other 7 21%
Unknown 10 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 11 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 13 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 04 September 2017.
All research outputs
#4,572,787
of 22,786,087 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#2,292
of 13,561 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,189
of 315,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#63
of 294 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,786,087 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,561 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 315,631 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 294 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.