Critical power in adolescent boys and girls — an exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to identify critical power (CP) in boys and girls and to examine the physiological responses to exercise at and 10% above CP (CP+10%) in a sub-group of boys. Nine boys and 9 girls (mean age 12.3 (0.5) y performed 3 constant-load tests to derive CP. Eight of the boys then exercised, in random order, at CP and CP+10% until volitional exhaustion. CP was 123 (28) and 91 (26) W for boys and girls, respectively (p < 0.02), which was equivalent to 75 (6) and 72 (10) % of peak oxygen uptake, respectively (p > 0.47). Boys' time to exhaustion at CP was 18 min 37 s (4 min 13 s), which was significantly longer (p < 0.007) than that at CP+10% (9 min 42 s (2 min 31 s)). End-exercise values for blood lactate concentration (B[La]) and maximal oxygen uptake were higher in the CP+10% trial (5.0 (2.4) mmol.L-1 and 2.15 (0.4) L.min-1, respectively) than in the CP trial, (B[La], 4.7 (2.1) mmol.L-1; maximal oxygen uptake, 2.05 (0.35) L.min-1; p > 0.13). Peak oxygen uptake (expressed as a percentage of the peak value) was not attained at the end of the trials (94 (12) and 98 (14) % for CP and CP+10%, respectively). These results provide information about the boundary between the heavy and severe exercise intensity domains in children, and have demonstrated that CP in a group of boys does not represent a sustainable steady-state intensity of exercise.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".