Individual versus Standardized Running Protocols in the Determination of VO2max.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine whether an individually designed incremental exercise protocol results in greater rates of oxygen uptake (VO2max) than standardized testing. Fourteen well-trained, male runners performed five incremental protocols in randomized order to measure their VO2max: i) an incremental test (INCS+I) with pre-defined increases in speed (2 min at 8.64 km·h(-1), then a rise of 1.44 km·h(-1) every 30 s up to 14.4 km·h(-1)) and thereafter inclination (0.5° every 30 s); ii) an incremental test (INCI) at constant speed (14.4 km·h(-1)) and increasing inclination (2° every 2 min from the initial 0°); iii) an incremental test (INCS) at constant inclination (0°) and increasing speed (0.5 km·h(-1) every 30 s from the initial 12.0 km·h(-1)); iv) a graded exercise protocol (GXP) at a 1° incline with increasing speed (initially 8.64 km·h(-1) + 1.44 km·h(-1) every 5 min); v) an individual exercise protocol (INDXP) in which the runner chose the inclination and speed. VO2max was lowest (-4.2%) during the GXP (p = 0.01; d = 0.06-0.61) compared to all other tests. The highest rating of perceived exertion, heart rate, ventilation and end-exercise blood lactate concentration were similar between the different protocols (p < 0.05). The time to exhaustion ranged from 7 min 18 sec (INCS) to 25 min 30 sec (GXP) (p = 0.01).The VO2max attained by employing an individual treadmill protocol does not differ from the values derived from various standardized incremental protocols. Key pointsThe mean maximum oxygen uptake during the GXP was lower than for all other tests.Differences in the maximum rate of oxygen uptake between the various protocols exhibited considerable inter-individual variation.From the current findings, it can be concluded that well trained athletes are able to perform an individually designed treadmill running protocol.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".