MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Influence Of Training Protocol On Endurance Effects

2005· article· en· W2029891313 on OpenAlexaff
Tim Meyer, Markus Auracher, Axel Urhausen, Wilfried Kindermann

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsNexen (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart rateEndurance trainingMedicineBlood lactateTreadmillIntensity (physics)Physical therapyVO2 maxExercise prescriptionExercise intensityInternal medicineBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE To determine the effect of deviating from commonly recommended training regimens on the size of changes in endurance capacity with regard to the weekly distribution of training sessions and the choice of exercise intensity. METHODS 51 healthy untrained subjects (44 ± 8 yrs, BMI 26.9 ± 5.3, VO2max 36.8 ± 8.6 ml*min−1*kg−1) were stratified for endurance capacity and sex and randomly assigned to 4 groups: regular training (REG, n=12, 5 sessions per week, 30 min each, intensity at 90% of the estimated maximal lactate steady state), “weekend warrior” (WW, n=13, 2 consecutive days per week for 75 min at the same intensity as REG), “fat burner” (FB, n=13, 5 sessions per week at a heart rate [HR] 15 min−1 below REG intensity), and control (CO, n=13, no training). Total energy output was held constant between the training groups which implied prolonging session durations for FB on an individual basis by 5 to 15 min to match the two other training groups. Training was conducted over 12 weeks and each session monitored by means of portable heart rate recorders. Identical graded treadmill protocols with simultaneous gas exchange, HR, and lactate measurements prior to and after the training program served for exercise prescription (given as HR ranges of 5–10 min−1) and documentation of endurance effects. RESULTS VO2max improved similarly and in all 3 training groups (REG +1.52 ml*min−1*kg−1, WW +3.37 ml*min−1*kg−1, FB +1.77 ml*min−1*kg−1). This effect was significant compared with CO (−0.95 ml*min−1*kg−1; p<0.05 for FB and REG; p<0.01 for WW). In comparison with CO (decrease by 3 min−1), average HR during incremental treadmill exercise decreased significantly by 9 min−1 (REG, p<0.05), 11 min−1 (WW, p<0.01), and 6 min−1 (FB, p<0.05). Only for the observed rightward shift of the lactate performance relationship, one group (FB) did not reach significant differences to CO. In absolute terms, the largest training gains were documented in WW. However, differences to the other training groups remained insignificant throughout. CONCLUSIONS In a middle-age population, deviations from commonly recommended weekly scheduling of training or from the choice of moderate intensity does not lead to major impairment of expectable improvements in endurance capacity provided the energy output is held equal. There are slight indications that the choice of a too low intensity might be more detrimental to positive training effects than piling up training sessions at the weekends as it is often practiced due to occupational constraints.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicSports Performance and Training→French-language works237,207→