MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988924791 · doi:10.1139/h07-037

Methods to quantify intermittent exercises

2007· article· en· W1988924791 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
François-Denis Desgorces, Xavier Sénégas, Judith García, Leslie M. Decker, Philippe Noirez

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSprintHeart rateEndurance trainingBlood lactateMedicinePerceived exertionRating of perceived exertionPhysical therapyDelayed onset muscle sorenessCardiologyInternal medicineBlood pressureMuscle damage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to quantify intermittent training sessions using different types of exercise. Strength, sprint, and endurance sessions were performed until exhaustion. These sessions were quantified by the product of duration and heart rate (HR) (i.e., training impulse (TRIMP) and HR-zone methods), by the product of duration and rate of perceived exertion (RPE-based method), and a new method (work endurance recovery (WER)). The WER method aims to determine the level of exercise-induced physiological stress using the ratio of cumulated work - endurance limit, which is associated with the naparian logarithm of the ratio of work-recovery. Each session's effects were assessed using blood lactate, delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS), RPE, and HR. Because sessions were performed until exhaustion, it was assumed that each session would have a similar training load (TL) and there would be low interindividual variability. Each method was used to compare each of the TL quantifications. The endurance session induced the higher HR response (p < 0.001), the sprint session the higher blood lactate increase (p < 0.001), and the strength session the higher DOMS when compared with sprint (p = 0.007). TLs were similar after WER calculations, whereas the HR- and RPE-based methods showed differences between endurance and sprint (p < 0.001), and between endurance and strength TL (p < 0.001 and p < 0.01, respectively). The TLs from WER were correlated to those of the HR-based methods of endurance exercise, for which HR was known to accurately reflect the exercise-induced physiological stress (r = 0.63 and r = 0.64, p < 0.05). In addition, the TL from WER presented low interindividual variability, yet a marked variability was observed in the TLs of HR- and RPE-based methods. As opposed to the latter two methods, WER can quantify varied intermittent exercises and makes it possible to compare the athletes' TL. Furthermore, WER can also assist in comparing athlete responses to training programs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.009

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physiology Nutrition and MetabolismSame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207