Abstract
| Originalsprog | Engelsk |
|---|---|
| Tidsskrift | Journal of Applied Physiology |
| Vol/bind | 100 |
| Sider (fra-til) | 1410-1412 |
| ISSN | 8750-7587 |
| DOI | |
| Status | Udgivet - 2006 |
Adgang til dokumentet
Citationsformater
- APA
- Standard
- Harvard
- Vancouver
- Author
- BIBTEX
- RIS
Point:Counterpoint: Lactic acid accumulation is an advantage/disadvantage during muscle activity. / Lamb, Graham D.; Stephenson, George; Bangsbo, Jens; Juel, Carsten.
I: Journal of Applied Physiology, Bind 100, 2006, s. 1410-1412.Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › peer review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Point:Counterpoint: Lactic acid accumulation is an advantage/disadvantage during muscle activity
AU - Lamb, Graham D.
AU - Stephenson, George
AU - Bangsbo, Jens
AU - Juel, Carsten
PY - 2006
Y1 - 2006
N2 - This series of debates was initiated for the Journal of Applied Physiology because we believe an important means of searching for truth is through debate where contradictory viewpoints are put forward. This dialectic process whereby a thesis is advanced, then opposed by an antithesis, with a synthesis subsequently arrived at, is a powerful and often entertaining method for gaining knowledge and for understanding the source of a controversy. Before reading these Point:Counterpoint manuscripts or preparing a brief commentary on their content (see below for instructions), the reader should understand that authors on each side of the debate are expected to advance a polarized viewpoint and to select the most convincing data to support their position. This approach differs markedly from the review article where the reader expects the author to present balanced coverage of the topic. Each of the authors has been strictly limited in the lengths of both the manuscript (1,200 words) and the rebuttal (400). The number of references to publications is also limited to 30, and citation of unpublished findings is prohibited.
AB - This series of debates was initiated for the Journal of Applied Physiology because we believe an important means of searching for truth is through debate where contradictory viewpoints are put forward. This dialectic process whereby a thesis is advanced, then opposed by an antithesis, with a synthesis subsequently arrived at, is a powerful and often entertaining method for gaining knowledge and for understanding the source of a controversy. Before reading these Point:Counterpoint manuscripts or preparing a brief commentary on their content (see below for instructions), the reader should understand that authors on each side of the debate are expected to advance a polarized viewpoint and to select the most convincing data to support their position. This approach differs markedly from the review article where the reader expects the author to present balanced coverage of the topic. Each of the authors has been strictly limited in the lengths of both the manuscript (1,200 words) and the rebuttal (400). The number of references to publications is also limited to 30, and citation of unpublished findings is prohibited.
U2 - 10.1152/japplphysiol.00023.2006
DO - 10.1152/japplphysiol.00023.2006
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 16540714
VL - 100
SP - 1410
EP - 1412
JO - Journal of Applied Physiology
JF - Journal of Applied Physiology
SN - 8750-7587
ER -