Comparison of a Kayaking Ergometer Protocol With an Arm Crank Protocol for Evaluating Peak Oxygen Consumption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare a kayak ergometer protocol with an arm crank protocol for determining peak oxygen consumption (V(.-)O2). On separate days in random order, 10 men and 5 women (16-24 years old) with kayaking experience completed the kayak ergometer protocol and a standardized arm crank protocol. The kayak protocol began at 70 strokes per minute and increased by 10 strokes per minute every 2 minutes until volitional fatigue. The arm crank protocol consisted of a crank rate of 70 revolutions per minute, initial loading of 35 W and subsequent increases of 35 W every 2 minutes until volitional fatigue. The results showed a significant difference (p < 0.01) between the kayak ergometer and the arm crank protocols for relative peak V(.-)O2 (47.5 +/- 3.9 ml x kg(-1) x min(-1) vs. 44.2 +/- 6.2 ml x kg(-1) x min(-1)) and absolute peak V(.-)O2 (3.38 L x min(-1) +/- 0.53 vs. 3.14 +/- 0.64 L x min(-1)). The correlation between kayak and arm crank protocol was 0.79 and 0.90, for relative and absolute V(.-)O2 peak, respectively (both p < 0.01). The higher peak V(.-)O2 on the kayak ergometer may be due to the greater muscle mass involved compared to the arm crank ergometer. The kayak ergometer protocol may therefore be more specific to the sport of kayaking than an arm crank protocol.
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 | 0.006 | 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".