Mechanisms for Increases in V˙O2max with Endurance Training in Older and Young Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the time course and mechanisms of cardiorespiratory fitness adaptation to training in older (O) and young (Y) women. METHODS: A total of six O (69 ± 7 yr) and eight Y (25 ± 5 yr) women were examined before training and after 3, 6, 9, and 12 wk of training. Training was performed on a cycle ergometer three times per week for 45 min at ∼70% of V˙O2max. RESULTS: V˙O2max (mL·kg(-1)·min(-1)) increased within 3 wk, with further changes observed at weeks 6 and 9 in both O (17% ± 14%) and Y and also posttraining (12 wk) in Y (22% ± 6%, P < 0.05). Maximal cardiac output (Q˙max, open-circuit acetylene) and stroke volume increased only in Y after 9 wk of training (P < 0.05). Age × testing time interactions in maximal arterial-venous O2 difference (a-vO2diff) after 6 wk of training revealed a greater dependence on a-vO2diff in O compared with Y (P < 0.05); ∼65% of the change in V˙O2max from pretraining to posttraining was explained by a widened maximal a-vO2diff in O compared with almost equal increases in Q˙max and maximal a-vO2diff in Y. The early adaptations (first 3 wk) in O relied exclusively on a nonsignificant increase in Q˙max, whereas Y depended on a widened maximal a-vO2diff. Later changes in V˙O2max were explained exclusively by an improved maximal a-vO2diff in O and a larger Q˙max in Y. CONCLUSIONS: O and Y women displayed a different time course of training adaptation in V˙O2max, with Y (after an initial improvement in maximal a-vO2diff) depending more on changes in Q˙max and O mostly relying on a widened maximal a-vO2diff.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".