Effect of Equated Continuous and Interval Running Programs on Endurance Performance and Jump Capacity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated the effect of 2 different interval and continuous training programs on the maximal aerobic speed (MAS), time limit at MAS (T(lim)), and on the countermovement jump (CMJ). Twenty-two physically active men were randomly distributed in an interval training group (ITG), continuous training group (CTG), and control group. The CTG and ITG performed 2 different training programs (65-70 and 90-100% of the MAS for CTG and ITG, respectively) that consisted of 3 sessions per week during a period of 8 weeks with an identical external workload (% MAS × duration in minutes). The MAS, the T(lim) and the CMJ were recorded before and after the running training programs. The data analysis showed a significant and similar improvement (p < 0.01) of the MAS for both the ITG (5.8%) and CTG (8.3%). The T(lim) and CMJ did not change significantly for either group after the training period. Our results indicate that 8 weeks of continuous or interval running programs with externally equated load led to similar improvements in the MAS without changing T(lim) and CMJ performance in moderately trained nonrunners.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".