↓ Skip to main content

The Physiological Mechanisms of Performance Enhancement with Sprint Interval Training Differ between the Upper and Lower Extremities in Humans

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, September 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 (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
24 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 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
The Physiological Mechanisms of Performance Enhancement with Sprint Interval Training Differ between the Upper and Lower Extremities in Humans
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, September 2016
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2016.00426
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christoph Zinner, David Morales-Alamo, Niels Ørtenblad, Filip J. Larsen, Tomas A. Schiffer, Sarah J. Willis, Miriam Gelabert-Rebato, Mario Perez-Valera, Robert Boushel, Jose A. L. Calbet, Hans-Christer Holmberg

Abstract

To elucidate the mechanisms underlying the differences in adaptation of arm and leg muscles to sprint training, over a period of 11 days 16 untrained men performed six sessions of 4-6 × 30-s all-out sprints (SIT) with the legs and arms, separately, with a 1-h interval of recovery. Limb-specific VO2peak, sprint performance (two 30-s Wingate tests with 4-min recovery), muscle efficiency and time-trial performance (TT, 5-min all-out) were assessed and biopsies from the m. vastus lateralis and m. triceps brachii taken before and after training. VO2peak and Wmax increased 3-11% after training, with a more pronounced change in the arms (P < 0.05). Gross efficiency improved for the arms (+8.8%, P < 0.05), but not the legs (-0.6%). Wingate peak and mean power outputs improved similarly for the arms and legs, as did TT performance. After training, VO2 during the two Wingate tests was increased by 52 and 6% for the arms and legs, respectively (P < 0.001). In the case of the arms, VO2 was higher during the first than second Wingate test (64 vs. 44%, P < 0.05). During the TT, relative exercise intensity, HR, VO2, VCO2, VE, and Vt were all lower during arm-cranking than leg-pedaling, and oxidation of fat was minimal, remaining so after training. Despite the higher relative intensity, fat oxidation was 70% greater during leg-pedaling (P = 0.017). The aerobic energy contribution in the legs was larger than for the arms during the Wingate tests, although VO2 for the arms was enhanced more by training, reducing the O2 deficit after SIT. The levels of muscle glycogen, as well as the myosin heavy chain composition were unchanged in both cases, while the activities of 3-hydroxyacyl-CoA-dehydrogenase and citrate synthase were elevated only in the legs and capillarization enhanced in both limbs. Multiple regression analysis demonstrated that the variables that predict TT performance differ for the arms and legs. The primary mechanism of adaptation to SIT by both the arms and legs is enhancement of aerobic energy production. However, with their higher proportion of fast muscle fibers, the arms exhibit greater plasticity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 99 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 15%
Student > Bachelor 14 14%
Professor 8 8%
Researcher 6 6%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 18 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 49 49%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 24 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 06 January 2021.
All research outputs
#2,552,993
of 24,719,968 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#1,398
of 15,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,075
of 328,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#22
of 170 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,719,968 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 328,924 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 170 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.