Comparison of Running Economy using Allometric Scaling to Adjust for Body Mass Differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1734 Recent studies have observed that the oxygen demand of running does not increase proportionally to body mass. This would effectively lead to lighter people requiring a seemingly higher oxygen uptake per kg body mass than heavier people when expressed in ml.kg.−1min−1. PURPOSE: To investigate running economy (RE) in two groups of male subjects, differing significantly in VO2peak values, using different methods for scaling body mass. METHODS: VO2peak was determined using a continuous, incremental protocol from 20 college-aged males: 10 untrained runners (UT; 51.6 ± 1.9 ml.kg.−1min−1) and 10 well-trained runners (TG; 70.9 ± 6.3 ml.kg.−1min−1). Measures of RE were obtained on two separate occasions at 2.68 m.s−1 and at a velocity corresponding to that individual's Tvent. Running economy was compared in ml.kg- 1.min−1 and also by scaling body mass to an exponent of 0.75 and 0.67. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences found between the groups when RE was expressed in L.min−1 or ml.kg−1.min−1 for both test velocities. At 2.68 m.s−1 UT had a mean submaximal VO2 of 38.1 ± 2.1 ml.kg−1.min−1 and the TG had a mean submaximal VO2 of 37.5 ± 2.5 ml.kg−1.min−1. When the RE values were compared, after the allometric scaling, no statistically significant differences were demonstrated. UT mean submaximal VO2 in ml.kg−x.min−1 at 2.68 m.s−1, when scaled to an exponent of 0.75 and 0.67, were 113.2 ± 9.4 and 160.0 ± 13.4 respectively. TG had mean values of 107.7 ± 5.9 and 150.7 ± 8.4 for the same measures. There where also no statistically significant differences found when measuring RE in ml.kg−1.km−1 at a velocity corresponding to the individual subjects' Tvent. This was true when both linear and allometric scaling was used. CONCLUSION: Despite using allometric scaling to account for the non-linear relationship between the oxygen demand of running and body mass, no statistically significant differences were found between untrained and well-trained runners. There was, however, a trend showing the TG to be more economical in all measures of economy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".