↓ Skip to main content

Is Oxygen Uptake Measurement Enough to Estimate Energy Expenditure During High-Intensity Intermittent Exercise? Quantification of Anaerobic Contribution by Different Methods

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, July 2018
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 (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
41 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 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
Is Oxygen Uptake Measurement Enough to Estimate Energy Expenditure During High-Intensity Intermittent Exercise? Quantification of Anaerobic Contribution by Different Methods
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2018.00868
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valéria L. G. Panissa, David H. Fukuda, Renan S. Caldeira, Jose Gerosa-Neto, Fabio S. Lira, Alessandro M. Zagatto, Emerson Franchini

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of the present study was to compare the contributions of the anaerobic pathway as determined by two different methods and energy expenditure during a typical high-intensity intermittent exercise (HIIE) protocol. Methods: A descriptive research design was utilized in which thirteen physically active men performed six experimental sessions consisting of an incremental test (session 1), submaximal tests at 40, 50, 60, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90% of velocity associated with maximum oxygen uptake (v V ˙ O2max) with two intensities per session (sessions 2-5), and the HIIE protocol (session 6; 10 efforts of 1 min at v V ˙ O2max interspersed by 1 min of passive recovery). The estimation of anaerobic energy system contribution was calculated by: (a) the excess post-exercise oxygen consumption plus delta lactate method and (b) the accumulated oxygen deficit method using the difference between predicted oxygen demand from the submaximal tests of varying intensities and accumulated oxygen uptake during HIIE. Estimation of aerobic energy system contribution was calculated through the measurement of oxygen consumption during activity. Total EE during the entire HIIE protocol (efforts + recovery) and for the efforts only were calculated from each method. Results: For efforts + recovery and efforts only, anaerobic contribution was similar for both methods, and consequently total EE was also equivalent (p = 0.230 for both comparisons). During efforts + recovery, aerobic:anaerobic energy system contribution was (68 ± 4%: 32 ± 4%), while efforts only was (54 ± 5%: 46 ± 5%) with both situations demonstrating greater aerobic than anaerobic contribution (p < 0.001 for both). Conclusion: Anaerobic contribution seems to be relevant during HIIE and must to be taken into account during total EE estimation; however, the type of method employed did not change the anaerobic contribution or total EE estimates.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 16%
Student > Master 11 15%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Student > Postgraduate 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 20 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 31 41%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 8%
Engineering 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 23 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 15 August 2018.
All research outputs
#1,399,452
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#755
of 14,285 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,078
of 327,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#54
of 501 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,285 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 327,694 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 501 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.