Intermittent walking fails to alter physiological responses to a paced 24 km run
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of continuous running (CR) and systematic run/walk (R9W1) exercise on physiological variables and running economy was compared in nine novice female runners who completed two randomly assigned 24 km run protocols separated by two weeks. The mean (±SD) VO2 max and age of the runners was 45.7 ± 4.8 ml · min−1 · kg−1 and 34 ± 9 years respectively. The R9W1 consisted of 9 min of running followed by 1 min of brisk walking. The two protocols were matched such that each subject completed both runs in the same elapsed time, which required a mean pace increase of 5.8 ± 1.9 m · min−1 during the running phase of the R9W1. Selected physiological responses V E , VO 2 , heart rate and rating perceived exertion were evaluated during treadmill exercise at the individual CR pace before and after each trial for estimation of running economy. Plasma creatine kinase (CK) activity was measured pre‐, immediately post‐ and at 24, 48 and 72 h after each run. Both protocols resulted in a significantly decreased running economy (p ≤ 0.05), however no difference was observed between the CR and R9W1. The rating of perceived exertion was similar during both protocols. CK activity increased significantly at 24 h after both the CR and R9W1 trials (1135.0 ± 542.79 and 1273.28 ± 376.62 IU · 1−1, respectively), although peak CK activity was not different. These results suggest that regular walking breaks during a paced 24 km run do not reduce fatigue or muscular stress compared with CR when elapsed time is equated.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".