V·O<sub>2</sub> Kinetics during Supramaximal Exercise: Relationship with Oxygen Deficit and 800-m Running Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare .VO2 kinetics of highly- versus recreationally-trained subjects during a constant velocity test of supramaximal intensity. Eighteen trained male subjects were recruited to one of two groups: highly trained (HT, n = 8, .VO(2max) = 70.1 +/- 6.5 ml . min (-1) . kg (-1)) and recreationally trained (RT, n = 10, .VO(2max) = 63.2 +/- 6.4 ml . min (-1) . kg (-1)). All subjects performed an incremental test to exhaustion for the determination of .VO(2max) and peak treadmill velocity (PTV), two constant velocity tests at 110 % of PTV to determine .VO2 kinetics and oxygen deficit (O(2)def), and a 800-m time trial to determine running performance (mean velocity over the distance, V (800 m)). We found significant differences between HT and RT for the on-transient of the .VO2 response (tau, 24.7 +/- 3.3 and 30.9 +/- 7.0 s, respectively), the amplitude of the .VO2 response (60.0 +/- 5.0 and 53.5 +/- 5.7 ml . min (-1) . kg (-1), respectively) and V (800 m) (6.27 +/- 2.1 and 5.45 +/- 0.38 m . s (-1), respectively). O(2)def (24.6 +/- 2.7 and 27.7 +/- 7.8 ml . kg (-1), respectively) and the gain of the .VO2 response (193 +/- 14 and 194 +/- 13 ml . kg (-1) . m (-1), respectively) were similar between groups. tau was associated with O(2)def (r = 0.90, p < 0.05), but not with V (800 m) (r = 0.30, p > 0.05). It was concluded that HT subjects exhibited faster on-kinetics and higher amplitude than their RT counterparts. The higher amplitude was not thought to reflect any difference in underlying physiological mechanisms. The faster tau, whose exact mechanisms remain to be elucidated, may have practical implications for coaches.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".