V˙O2max, Protocol Duration, and the V˙O2 Plateau
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
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare VO2max, VO2-time slopes at the end of the protocol (last 30 s), and the presence of a VO2 plateau (VO2-time slope < 0.05 L.min(-1) during the last 30 s) across four protocol durations (5, 8, 12, and 16 min) during incremental cycling exercise to VO2max. METHODS: Eight male (23.8 +/- 3.2 yr) and eight female (26.0 +/- 8.9 yr) subjects of moderate to high fitness levels participated in the study. RESULTS: VO2max was significantly higher in men than in women for each protocol duration, with main effect means of 4.23 versus 2.84 L.min(-1), respectively. For women, VO2max did not differ between any protocol duration. For men, VO2max for the 8-min protocol (4.44 +/- 0.39 L.min(-1)) was significantly higher than for all other protocol durations. Analysis of covariance, using the highest VO2max as the covariate, removed all protocol-duration significance for men. The VO2 slope for the final 30 s of each test was significantly lower for the 16-min protocol compared with the 5-min protocol, for both men and women. The ventilation threshold across four protocols was similar, at approximately 76% of VO2max for both men and women. CONCLUSIONS: The protocol duration of tests to VO2max should be between 8 and 10 min for healthy, moderately to highly trained subjects.
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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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