Figure 4 Time to exhaustion (T max ) for the graded exercise test

Figure 4 Time to exhaustion (T max ) for the graded exercise test. Mean values (+SEM) for posttest Tmax scores adjusted for the initial differences in pretest Tmax (covariate; adjusted pretest mean = 13.11). *Indicates Fludarabine in vivo significantly different than CTL (PLA-HIIT, p = 0.002; HMBFA-HIIT, p = 0.001). Respiratory Compensation Point (RCP) The ANCOVA indicated a significant difference (p < 0.001, η2 = 0.436) among the group means for the posttest RCP values after adjusting for pre-test differences (Figure 5). The strength of the association (i.e., effect size, η2) indicated that the treatment groups (CTL, PLA-HIIT, HMBFA-HIIT) accounted for 44% of the

variance of the post-test RCP values, holding constant the pre-test RCP scores. The

LSD pairwise comparisons indicated that the increase in RCP from pre- to post-testing was greater for the HMBFA-HIIT (p < 0.001) and GDC-0994 cost PLA-HIIT (p < 0.001) groups than for the CTL group, however, no differences were found between HMBFA-HIIT and PLA-HIIT groups (p = 0.77). The group means (±SEM) for the posttest RCP values, adjusted for Adriamycin in vitro initial differences in pretest scores, are shown in Figure 5. Figure 5 Respiratory compensation point (RCP). Mean values (+SEM) for posttest RCP scores adjusted for the initial differences in pretest RCP (covariate; adjusted pretest mean = 30.69). *Indicates significantly different than CTL (PLA-HIIT, p < 0.001; ADAM7 HMBFA-HIIT, p < 0.001). Power at Respiratory Compensation Point (PRCP) The ANCOVA indicated a significant difference (p = 0.001, η2 = 0.375) among the group means for the posttest PRCP values after adjusting for pre-test differences (Table 2, Figure 6). The strength of the association (i.e., effect size, η2) indicated that the treatment groups (CTL, PLA-HIIT, HMBFA-HIIT) accounted for 38% of the variance of the post-test PRCP values, holding constant the pre-test PRCP scores. The LSD pairwise comparisons indicated that the increase in PRCP from pre- to post-testing was greater for the HMBFA-HIIT (p < 0.001) and PLA-HIIT (p < 0.001) groups than for the CTL group, however, no differences

were found between HMBFA-HIIT and PLA-HIIT groups (p = 0.97). The group means (±SEM) for the posttest PRCP values, adjusted for initial differences in pretest scores, are shown in Figure 6. Figure 6 Power at respiratory compensation point (PRCP). Mean values (+SEM) for posttest PRCP scores adjusted for the initial differences in pretest PRCP (covariate; adjusted pretest mean = 175.43). *Indicates significantly different than CTL (PLA-HIIT, p = 0.001; HMBFA-HIIT, p = 0.001). Ventilatory Threshold (VT) The ANCOVA indicated a significant difference (p = 0.016, η2 = 0.24) among the group means for the post-test VT values after adjusting for pre-test differences (Figure 7). The strength of the association (i.e.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>