Evaluation of the Running-Based Anaerobic Sprint Test as a Measure of Repeated Sprint Ability in Collegiate-Level Soccer Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Repeated sprint ability (RSA) refers to an individual's ability to perform maximal sprints of short duration in succession with little recovery between sprints. The running-based anaerobic sprint test (RAST) has been adapted from the Wingate anaerobic test (WAnT) protocol as a tool to assess RSA and anaerobic power. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between performance variables and physiological responses obtained during the RAST and the WAnT using 8 collegiate-level soccer players. Participants performed a single trial of both the WAnT and the RAST. Breath-by-breath gas exchange was monitored throughout each trial, and blood lactate (BL) measures were recorded postexercise. The oxygen uptake (VO2) profile suggested that the RAST required greater contributions from aerobic metabolism although there was no difference in VO2peak (p < 0.05). Peak BL values were also similar between the RAST and the WAnT (p < 0.05). Neither peak physiological values nor performance variables (peak and mean power) were significantly correlated between protocols. The weak association in physiological responses indicates that different combinations of metabolic contributions exist between protocols, suggesting that individual performances on each test are not related in collegiate soccer players. Further studies on these relationships with players of other competitive levels and team sport athletes are warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".