↓ Skip to main content

Task Failure during Exercise to Exhaustion in Normoxia and Hypoxia Is Due to Reduced Muscle Activation Caused by Central Mechanisms While Muscle Metaboreflex Does Not Limit Performance

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, January 2016
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
25 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
139 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
Task Failure during Exercise to Exhaustion in Normoxia and Hypoxia Is Due to Reduced Muscle Activation Caused by Central Mechanisms While Muscle Metaboreflex Does Not Limit Performance
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2016
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2015.00414
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rafael Torres-Peralta, David Morales-Alamo, Miriam González-Izal, José Losa-Reyna, Ismael Pérez-Suárez, Mikel Izquierdo, José A. L. Calbet

Abstract

To determine whether task failure during incremental exercise to exhaustion (IE) is principally due to reduced neural drive and increased metaboreflex activation eleven men (22 ± 2 years) performed a 10 s control isokinetic sprint (IS; 80 rpm) after a short warm-up. This was immediately followed by an IE in normoxia (Nx, PIO2:143 mmHg) and hypoxia (Hyp, PIO2:73 mmHg) in random order, separated by a 120 min resting period. At exhaustion, the circulation of both legs was occluded instantaneously (300 mmHg) during 10 or 60 s to impede recovery and increase metaboreflex activation. This was immediately followed by an IS with open circulation. Electromyographic recordings were obtained from the vastus medialis and lateralis. Muscle biopsies and blood gases were obtained in separate experiments. During the last 10 s of the IE, pulmonary ventilation, VO2, power output and muscle activation were lower in hypoxia than in normoxia, while pedaling rate was similar. Compared to the control sprint, performance (IS-Wpeak) was reduced to a greater extent after the IE-Nx (11% lower P < 0.05) than IE-Hyp. The root mean square (EMGRMS) was reduced by 38 and 27% during IS performed after IE-Nx and IE-Hyp, respectively (Nx vs. Hyp: P < 0.05). Post-ischemia IS-EMGRMS values were higher than during the last 10 s of IE. Sprint exercise mean (IS-MPF) and median (IS-MdPF) power frequencies, and burst duration, were more reduced after IE-Nx than IE-Hyp (P < 0.05). Despite increased muscle lactate accumulation, acidification, and metaboreflex activation from 10 to 60 s of ischemia, IS-Wmean (+23%) and burst duration (+10%) increased, while IS-EMGRMS decreased (-24%, P < 0.05), with IS-MPF and IS-MdPF remaining unchanged. In conclusion, close to task failure, muscle activation is lower in hypoxia than in normoxia. Task failure is predominantly caused by central mechanisms, which recover to great extent within 1 min even when the legs remain ischemic. There is dissociation between the recovery of EMGRMS and performance. The reduction of surface electromyogram MPF, MdPF and burst duration due to fatigue is associated but not caused by muscle acidification and lactate accumulation. Despite metaboreflex stimulation, muscle activation and power output recovers partly in ischemia indicating that metaboreflex activation has a minor impact on sprint performance.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 1%
Unknown 137 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 17%
Student > Bachelor 17 12%
Student > Master 15 11%
Researcher 12 9%
Student > Postgraduate 12 9%
Other 32 23%
Unknown 28 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 54 39%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Neuroscience 5 4%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 36 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 20 April 2021.
All research outputs
#2,120,366
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#1,169
of 13,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,154
of 394,937 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#14
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,604 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 394,937 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 136 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.