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.
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.
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 |
Endurance Performance during Severe-Intensity Intermittent Cycling: Effect of Exercise Duration and Recovery Type
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Physiology, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fphys.2016.00602 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Luis F. Barbosa, Benedito S. Denadai, Camila C. Greco |
| Abstract |
Slow component of oxygen uptake (VO2SC) kinetics and maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) attainment seem to influence endurance performance during constant-work rate exercise (CWR) performed within the severe intensity domain. In this study, it was hypothesized that delaying the attainment of VO2max by reducing the rates at which VO2 increases with time (VO2SC kinetics) would improve the endurance performance during severe-intensity intermittent exercise performed with different work:recovery duration and recovery type in active individuals. After the estimation of the parameters of the VO2SC kinetics during CWR exercise, 18 males were divided into two groups (Passive and Active recovery) and performed at different days, two intermittent exercises to exhaustion (at 95% IVO2max, with work: recovery ratio of 2:1) with the duration of the repetitions calculated from the onset of the exercise to the beginning of the VO2SC (Short) or to the half duration of the VO2SC (Long). The active recovery was performed at 50% IVO2max. The endurance performance during intermittent exercises for the Passive (Short = 1523 ± 411; Long = 984 ± 260 s) and Active (Short = 902 ± 239; Long = 886 ± 254 s) groups was improved compared with CWR condition (Passive = 540 ± 116; Active = 489 ± 84 s). For Passive group, the endurance performance was significantly higher for Short than Long condition. However, no significant difference between Short and Long conditions was found for Active group. Additionally, the endurance performance during Short condition was higher for Passive than Active group. The VO2SC kinetics was significantly increased for CWR (Passive = 0.16 ± 0.04; Active = 0.16 ± 0.04 L.min(-2)) compared with Short (Passive = 0.01 ± 0.01; Active = 0.03 ± 0.04 L.min(-2)) and Long (Passive = 0.02 ± 0.01; Active = 0.01 ± 0.01 L.min(-2)) intermittent exercise conditions. No significant difference was found among the intermittent exercises. It can be concluded that the endurance performance is negatively influenced by active recovery only during shorter high-intensity intermittent exercise. Moreover, the improvement in endurance performance seems not be explained by differences in the VO2SC kinetics, since its values were similar among all intermittent exercise conditions. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 24% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 12% |
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| Finland | 1 | 6% |
| Chile | 1 | 6% |
| Taiwan | 1 | 6% |
| United States | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 53% |
| Scientists | 5 | 29% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 18% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 60 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 15% |
| Professor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 21% |
| Unknown | 13 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 36 | 58% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 14 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 09 December 2016.
All research outputs
#3,658,899
of 24,717,692 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#2,026
of 15,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,814
of 426,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#41
of 218 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,717,692 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,186 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 86% 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 426,134 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 218 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.