Effects of Different Stepwise Reduction Taper Protocols on Cycling Performance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the effects of different 7-day taper protocols on simulated 20-km time trials (20TT). Following 3 weeks of baseline training, 11 male cyclists (.VO2max = 4.78 +/- 0.66 L.min-1) were randomly assigned to one of three stepwise reduction tapers in which training volume was reduced by 30% (T30, n = 5), 50% (T50, n = 6), or 80% (T80, n = 6) of baseline training with intensity (85% .VO2max) maintained. Cardiorespiratory measurements were collected every 5 km during the 20TT. Results revealed a significant (5.4%, 0.05) improvement in 20TT performance in the T50 protocol with concomitant increases in .VO2 and O2 pulse. No significant differences were found in T30 or T80. These results showed that a moderate (50%) reduction in weekly training volume appeared to be optimal in terms of enhancing performance. This confirms the contention that proper placement of training volume during tapering, while maintaining exercise intensity, can elicit performance improvements.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it