Maximal accumulated oxygen deficit in running and cycling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare values of maximal accumulated oxygen deficit (MAOD; a measure of anaerobic capacity) in running and cycling. Twenty-seven women and 25 men performed exhaustive treadmill and cycle ergometer tests of ∼3 min, ∼5 min, and ∼7 min duration. Oxygen demands were estimated assuming a linear relationship between demand and intensity and also using upwardly curvilinear relationships. When oxygen demand was estimated using speed (with exponent 1.05), values for MAOD for the three running tests were virtually identical; the mean of the three values was 78 ± 7 mL·kg⁻¹. Use of an oxygen demand that was estimated using work rate (with exponent 1.00) generated the most similar values for MAOD from the three cycling tests (mean of 59 ± 6 mL·kg⁻¹). Consistent with the higher (p < 0.05) MAOD in running, peak post-exercise blood lactate concentrations were also higher (p < 0.05) in running (13.9 ± 2.2 mmol·L⁻¹) than in cycling (12.6 ± 2.4 mmol·L⁻¹). The results suggest that the relationship between oxygen demand and running speed is upwardly curvilinear for the speeds used to measure MAOD; the relationship between demand and cycle ergometer work rate is linear; MAOD is greater in running than in cycling.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".