The Experts below are selected from a list of 318 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Olaf Hoos - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Metabolic Profiles of the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test and the Corresponding Continuous Version in Team-Sport Athletes-Elucidating the Role of Inter-Effort Recovery.
International journal of sports physiology and performance, 2021Co-Authors: Sebastian Kaufmann, Ralph Beneke, Richard Latzel, Hanna Pfister, Olaf HoosAbstract:To elucidate the role of inter-effort recovery in shuttle running by comparing the metabolic profiles of the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test (30-15IFT) and the corresponding Continuous Version (30-15IFT-CONT). Sixteen state-level handball players (age = 23 [3] y, height = 185 [7] cm, weight = 85 [14] kg) completed the 30-15IFT and 30-15IFT-CONT, and speed at the last completed stage (in kilometers per hour) and time to exhaustion (in seconds) were assessed. Furthermore, oxygen uptake (in milliliters per kilogram per minute) and blood lactate were obtained preexercise, during exercise, and until 15 minutes postexercise. Metabolic energy (in kilojoules), metabolic power (in Watts per kilogram), and relative (in percentage) energy contribution of the aerobic (WAER, WAERint), anaerobic lactic (WBLC, WBLCint), and anaerobic alactic (WPCr, WPCrint) systems were calculated by PCr-La-O2 method for 30-15IFT-CONT and 30-15IFT. No difference in peak oxygen uptake was found between 30-15IFT and 30-15IFT-CONT (60.6 [6.6] vs 60.5 [5.1] mL·kg-1·min-1, P = .165, d = 0.20), whereas speed at the last completed stage was higher in 30-15IFT (18.3 [1.4] vs 16.1 [1.0] km·h-1, P < .001, d = 1.17). Metabolic energy was also higher in 30-15IFT (1224.2 [269.6] vs 772.8 [63.1] kJ, P < .001, d = 5.60), and metabolic profiles differed substantially for aerobic (30-15IFT = 67.2 [5.2] vs 30-15IFT-CONT = 85.2% [2.5%], P < .001, d = -4.01), anaerobic lactic (30-15IFT = 4.4 [1.4] vs 30-15IFT-CONT = 6.2% [1.8%], P < .001, d = -1.04), and anaerobic alactic (30-15IFT = 28.4 [4.7] vs 30-15IFT-CONT = 8.6% [2.1%], P < .001, d = 5.43) components. Both 30-15IFT and 30-15IFT-CONT are mainly fueled by aerobic energy, but their metabolic profiles differ substantially in both aerobic and anaerobic alactic energy contribution. Due to the presence of inter-effort recovery, intermittent shuttle runs rely to a higher extent on anaerobic alactic energy and a fast, aerobic replenishment of PCr during the short breaks between shuttles.
-
metabolic profiles of the 30 15 intermittent fitness test and the corresponding Continuous Version in team sport athletes elucidating the role of inter effort recovery
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2020Co-Authors: Sebastian Kaufmann, Ralph Beneke, Richard Latzel, Hanna Pfister, Olaf HoosAbstract:PURPOSE To elucidate the role of inter-effort recovery in shuttle running by comparing the metabolic profiles of the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test (30-15IFT) and the corresponding Continuous Version (30-15IFT-CONT). METHODS Sixteen state-level handball players (age = 23 [3] y, height = 185 [7] cm, weight = 85 [14] kg) completed the 30-15IFT and 30-15IFT-CONT, and speed at the last completed stage (in kilometers per hour) and time to exhaustion (in seconds) were assessed. Furthermore, oxygen uptake (in milliliters per kilogram per minute) and blood lactate were obtained preexercise, during exercise, and until 15 minutes postexercise. Metabolic energy (in kilojoules), metabolic power (in Watts per kilogram), and relative (in percentage) energy contribution of the aerobic (WAER, WAERint), anaerobic lactic (WBLC, WBLCint), and anaerobic alactic (WPCr, WPCrint) systems were calculated by PCr-La-O2 method for 30-15IFT-CONT and 30-15IFT. RESULTS No difference in peak oxygen uptake was found between 30-15IFT and 30-15IFT-CONT (60.6 [6.6] vs 60.5 [5.1] mL·kg-1·min-1, P = .165, d = 0.20), whereas speed at the last completed stage was higher in 30-15IFT (18.3 [1.4] vs 16.1 [1.0] km·h-1, P < .001, d = 1.17). Metabolic energy was also higher in 30-15IFT (1224.2 [269.6] vs 772.8 [63.1] kJ, P < .001, d = 5.60), and metabolic profiles differed substantially for aerobic (30-15IFT = 67.2 [5.2] vs 30-15IFT-CONT = 85.2% [2.5%], P < .001, d = -4.01), anaerobic lactic (30-15IFT = 4.4 [1.4] vs 30-15IFT-CONT = 6.2% [1.8%], P < .001, d = -1.04), and anaerobic alactic (30-15IFT = 28.4 [4.7] vs 30-15IFT-CONT = 8.6% [2.1%], P < .001, d = 5.43) components. CONCLUSIONS Both 30-15IFT and 30-15IFT-CONT are mainly fueled by aerobic energy, but their metabolic profiles differ substantially in both aerobic and anaerobic alactic energy contribution. Due to the presence of inter-effort recovery, intermittent shuttle runs rely to a higher extent on anaerobic alactic energy and a fast, aerobic replenishment of PCr during the short breaks between shuttles.
Thomas Smotzer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a Continuous Version of the littlewood richardson rule and its application to invariant subspaces
Advances in Mathematics, 1998Co-Authors: Hari Bercovici, Thomas SmotzerAbstract:LetTbe an operator of classC0and M be an invariant subspace forT. We find a relationship that must hold for the Jordan models ofT,T ∣ M andT* ∣ M⊥. This relationship reduces to a theorem of Green whenTis algebraic, and it involves a Continuous extension of Littlewood–Richardson sequences.
-
A Continuous Version of the Littlewood–Richardson Rule and Its Application to Invariant Subspaces☆
Advances in Mathematics, 1998Co-Authors: Hari Bercovici, Thomas SmotzerAbstract:LetTbe an operator of classC0and M be an invariant subspace forT. We find a relationship that must hold for the Jordan models ofT,T ∣ M andT* ∣ M⊥. This relationship reduces to a theorem of Green whenTis algebraic, and it involves a Continuous extension of Littlewood–Richardson sequences.
Sebastian Kaufmann - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Metabolic Profiles of the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test and the Corresponding Continuous Version in Team-Sport Athletes-Elucidating the Role of Inter-Effort Recovery.
International journal of sports physiology and performance, 2021Co-Authors: Sebastian Kaufmann, Ralph Beneke, Richard Latzel, Hanna Pfister, Olaf HoosAbstract:To elucidate the role of inter-effort recovery in shuttle running by comparing the metabolic profiles of the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test (30-15IFT) and the corresponding Continuous Version (30-15IFT-CONT). Sixteen state-level handball players (age = 23 [3] y, height = 185 [7] cm, weight = 85 [14] kg) completed the 30-15IFT and 30-15IFT-CONT, and speed at the last completed stage (in kilometers per hour) and time to exhaustion (in seconds) were assessed. Furthermore, oxygen uptake (in milliliters per kilogram per minute) and blood lactate were obtained preexercise, during exercise, and until 15 minutes postexercise. Metabolic energy (in kilojoules), metabolic power (in Watts per kilogram), and relative (in percentage) energy contribution of the aerobic (WAER, WAERint), anaerobic lactic (WBLC, WBLCint), and anaerobic alactic (WPCr, WPCrint) systems were calculated by PCr-La-O2 method for 30-15IFT-CONT and 30-15IFT. No difference in peak oxygen uptake was found between 30-15IFT and 30-15IFT-CONT (60.6 [6.6] vs 60.5 [5.1] mL·kg-1·min-1, P = .165, d = 0.20), whereas speed at the last completed stage was higher in 30-15IFT (18.3 [1.4] vs 16.1 [1.0] km·h-1, P < .001, d = 1.17). Metabolic energy was also higher in 30-15IFT (1224.2 [269.6] vs 772.8 [63.1] kJ, P < .001, d = 5.60), and metabolic profiles differed substantially for aerobic (30-15IFT = 67.2 [5.2] vs 30-15IFT-CONT = 85.2% [2.5%], P < .001, d = -4.01), anaerobic lactic (30-15IFT = 4.4 [1.4] vs 30-15IFT-CONT = 6.2% [1.8%], P < .001, d = -1.04), and anaerobic alactic (30-15IFT = 28.4 [4.7] vs 30-15IFT-CONT = 8.6% [2.1%], P < .001, d = 5.43) components. Both 30-15IFT and 30-15IFT-CONT are mainly fueled by aerobic energy, but their metabolic profiles differ substantially in both aerobic and anaerobic alactic energy contribution. Due to the presence of inter-effort recovery, intermittent shuttle runs rely to a higher extent on anaerobic alactic energy and a fast, aerobic replenishment of PCr during the short breaks between shuttles.
-
metabolic profiles of the 30 15 intermittent fitness test and the corresponding Continuous Version in team sport athletes elucidating the role of inter effort recovery
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2020Co-Authors: Sebastian Kaufmann, Ralph Beneke, Richard Latzel, Hanna Pfister, Olaf HoosAbstract:PURPOSE To elucidate the role of inter-effort recovery in shuttle running by comparing the metabolic profiles of the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test (30-15IFT) and the corresponding Continuous Version (30-15IFT-CONT). METHODS Sixteen state-level handball players (age = 23 [3] y, height = 185 [7] cm, weight = 85 [14] kg) completed the 30-15IFT and 30-15IFT-CONT, and speed at the last completed stage (in kilometers per hour) and time to exhaustion (in seconds) were assessed. Furthermore, oxygen uptake (in milliliters per kilogram per minute) and blood lactate were obtained preexercise, during exercise, and until 15 minutes postexercise. Metabolic energy (in kilojoules), metabolic power (in Watts per kilogram), and relative (in percentage) energy contribution of the aerobic (WAER, WAERint), anaerobic lactic (WBLC, WBLCint), and anaerobic alactic (WPCr, WPCrint) systems were calculated by PCr-La-O2 method for 30-15IFT-CONT and 30-15IFT. RESULTS No difference in peak oxygen uptake was found between 30-15IFT and 30-15IFT-CONT (60.6 [6.6] vs 60.5 [5.1] mL·kg-1·min-1, P = .165, d = 0.20), whereas speed at the last completed stage was higher in 30-15IFT (18.3 [1.4] vs 16.1 [1.0] km·h-1, P < .001, d = 1.17). Metabolic energy was also higher in 30-15IFT (1224.2 [269.6] vs 772.8 [63.1] kJ, P < .001, d = 5.60), and metabolic profiles differed substantially for aerobic (30-15IFT = 67.2 [5.2] vs 30-15IFT-CONT = 85.2% [2.5%], P < .001, d = -4.01), anaerobic lactic (30-15IFT = 4.4 [1.4] vs 30-15IFT-CONT = 6.2% [1.8%], P < .001, d = -1.04), and anaerobic alactic (30-15IFT = 28.4 [4.7] vs 30-15IFT-CONT = 8.6% [2.1%], P < .001, d = 5.43) components. CONCLUSIONS Both 30-15IFT and 30-15IFT-CONT are mainly fueled by aerobic energy, but their metabolic profiles differ substantially in both aerobic and anaerobic alactic energy contribution. Due to the presence of inter-effort recovery, intermittent shuttle runs rely to a higher extent on anaerobic alactic energy and a fast, aerobic replenishment of PCr during the short breaks between shuttles.
Hari Bercovici - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a Continuous Version of the littlewood richardson rule and its application to invariant subspaces
Advances in Mathematics, 1998Co-Authors: Hari Bercovici, Thomas SmotzerAbstract:LetTbe an operator of classC0and M be an invariant subspace forT. We find a relationship that must hold for the Jordan models ofT,T ∣ M andT* ∣ M⊥. This relationship reduces to a theorem of Green whenTis algebraic, and it involves a Continuous extension of Littlewood–Richardson sequences.
-
A Continuous Version of the Littlewood–Richardson Rule and Its Application to Invariant Subspaces☆
Advances in Mathematics, 1998Co-Authors: Hari Bercovici, Thomas SmotzerAbstract:LetTbe an operator of classC0and M be an invariant subspace forT. We find a relationship that must hold for the Jordan models ofT,T ∣ M andT* ∣ M⊥. This relationship reduces to a theorem of Green whenTis algebraic, and it involves a Continuous extension of Littlewood–Richardson sequences.
Richard Latzel - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Metabolic Profiles of the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test and the Corresponding Continuous Version in Team-Sport Athletes-Elucidating the Role of Inter-Effort Recovery.
International journal of sports physiology and performance, 2021Co-Authors: Sebastian Kaufmann, Ralph Beneke, Richard Latzel, Hanna Pfister, Olaf HoosAbstract:To elucidate the role of inter-effort recovery in shuttle running by comparing the metabolic profiles of the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test (30-15IFT) and the corresponding Continuous Version (30-15IFT-CONT). Sixteen state-level handball players (age = 23 [3] y, height = 185 [7] cm, weight = 85 [14] kg) completed the 30-15IFT and 30-15IFT-CONT, and speed at the last completed stage (in kilometers per hour) and time to exhaustion (in seconds) were assessed. Furthermore, oxygen uptake (in milliliters per kilogram per minute) and blood lactate were obtained preexercise, during exercise, and until 15 minutes postexercise. Metabolic energy (in kilojoules), metabolic power (in Watts per kilogram), and relative (in percentage) energy contribution of the aerobic (WAER, WAERint), anaerobic lactic (WBLC, WBLCint), and anaerobic alactic (WPCr, WPCrint) systems were calculated by PCr-La-O2 method for 30-15IFT-CONT and 30-15IFT. No difference in peak oxygen uptake was found between 30-15IFT and 30-15IFT-CONT (60.6 [6.6] vs 60.5 [5.1] mL·kg-1·min-1, P = .165, d = 0.20), whereas speed at the last completed stage was higher in 30-15IFT (18.3 [1.4] vs 16.1 [1.0] km·h-1, P < .001, d = 1.17). Metabolic energy was also higher in 30-15IFT (1224.2 [269.6] vs 772.8 [63.1] kJ, P < .001, d = 5.60), and metabolic profiles differed substantially for aerobic (30-15IFT = 67.2 [5.2] vs 30-15IFT-CONT = 85.2% [2.5%], P < .001, d = -4.01), anaerobic lactic (30-15IFT = 4.4 [1.4] vs 30-15IFT-CONT = 6.2% [1.8%], P < .001, d = -1.04), and anaerobic alactic (30-15IFT = 28.4 [4.7] vs 30-15IFT-CONT = 8.6% [2.1%], P < .001, d = 5.43) components. Both 30-15IFT and 30-15IFT-CONT are mainly fueled by aerobic energy, but their metabolic profiles differ substantially in both aerobic and anaerobic alactic energy contribution. Due to the presence of inter-effort recovery, intermittent shuttle runs rely to a higher extent on anaerobic alactic energy and a fast, aerobic replenishment of PCr during the short breaks between shuttles.
-
metabolic profiles of the 30 15 intermittent fitness test and the corresponding Continuous Version in team sport athletes elucidating the role of inter effort recovery
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2020Co-Authors: Sebastian Kaufmann, Ralph Beneke, Richard Latzel, Hanna Pfister, Olaf HoosAbstract:PURPOSE To elucidate the role of inter-effort recovery in shuttle running by comparing the metabolic profiles of the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test (30-15IFT) and the corresponding Continuous Version (30-15IFT-CONT). METHODS Sixteen state-level handball players (age = 23 [3] y, height = 185 [7] cm, weight = 85 [14] kg) completed the 30-15IFT and 30-15IFT-CONT, and speed at the last completed stage (in kilometers per hour) and time to exhaustion (in seconds) were assessed. Furthermore, oxygen uptake (in milliliters per kilogram per minute) and blood lactate were obtained preexercise, during exercise, and until 15 minutes postexercise. Metabolic energy (in kilojoules), metabolic power (in Watts per kilogram), and relative (in percentage) energy contribution of the aerobic (WAER, WAERint), anaerobic lactic (WBLC, WBLCint), and anaerobic alactic (WPCr, WPCrint) systems were calculated by PCr-La-O2 method for 30-15IFT-CONT and 30-15IFT. RESULTS No difference in peak oxygen uptake was found between 30-15IFT and 30-15IFT-CONT (60.6 [6.6] vs 60.5 [5.1] mL·kg-1·min-1, P = .165, d = 0.20), whereas speed at the last completed stage was higher in 30-15IFT (18.3 [1.4] vs 16.1 [1.0] km·h-1, P < .001, d = 1.17). Metabolic energy was also higher in 30-15IFT (1224.2 [269.6] vs 772.8 [63.1] kJ, P < .001, d = 5.60), and metabolic profiles differed substantially for aerobic (30-15IFT = 67.2 [5.2] vs 30-15IFT-CONT = 85.2% [2.5%], P < .001, d = -4.01), anaerobic lactic (30-15IFT = 4.4 [1.4] vs 30-15IFT-CONT = 6.2% [1.8%], P < .001, d = -1.04), and anaerobic alactic (30-15IFT = 28.4 [4.7] vs 30-15IFT-CONT = 8.6% [2.1%], P < .001, d = 5.43) components. CONCLUSIONS Both 30-15IFT and 30-15IFT-CONT are mainly fueled by aerobic energy, but their metabolic profiles differ substantially in both aerobic and anaerobic alactic energy contribution. Due to the presence of inter-effort recovery, intermittent shuttle runs rely to a higher extent on anaerobic alactic energy and a fast, aerobic replenishment of PCr during the short breaks between shuttles.