The 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test: Accuracy for Individualizing Interval Training of Young Intermittent Sport Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to gather evidence supporting the accuracy of the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test (30-15IFT) for individualizing interval training of young intermittent sport players. In 59 young intermittent sport players (age, 16.2 +/- 2.3 years), we observed the relationships between the maximal running speed (MRS) reached at the end of the 30-15IFT (MRS30-15IFT) and physiological variables elicited by shuttle intermittent runs, including maximal oxygen uptake, explosive power of lower limbs, and the ability to repeat intense exercise bouts through cardiorespiratory recovery kinetics during exercise. To observe the capacity of the 30-15IFT to prescribe suitable running intensities for interval training sessions, we compared heart rates (HRs) reached during 3 series of intermittent runs, where distances were set according to the MRS30-15IFT and to MRS reached with 2 popular continuous field tests: the University of Montreal track test and the 20-m shuttle run test. The results show that the MRS30-15IFT is significantly correlated with all physiological variables elicited by shuttle intermittent runs (P < 0.05). Although mean HR were not different among the 3 series of intermittent runs, HR recorded during the runs based on MRS30-15IFT presented significantly less interindividual variation than when the continuously determined MRS were used as reference speeds. In conclusion, we can say that the 30-15IFT leads to an MRS that simultaneously takes into account various physiological qualities elicited when performing shuttle intermittent runs. For scheduling interval training sessions, the MRS30-15IFT appears to be an accurate reference speed for getting players with different physiological profiles to a similar level of cardiorespiratory demand and thus for standardizing training content.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".