Training Principles and Issues for Ultra-endurance Athletes
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
Ultra-endurance competition is defined as events that exceed than 6 hours in duration. The longer events rely on long-term preparation, sufficient nutrition, accommodation of environmental stressors, and psychologic toughness. Successful ultra-endurance performance is characterized by the ability to sustain a higher absolute speed for a given distance than other competitors. This can be achieved through a periodized training plan and by following key principles of training. Periodization is an organization of training into large, medium and small training blocks which are referred to as macro-, meso-, and microcycles, respectively. When the sequencing of training is correctly applied, athletes can achieve a high state of competition readiness and during the months of hard training, avoid the overtraining syndrome. A plan is executed in accordance with the following principles of training: all-around development, overload, specificity, individualization, consistent training, and structural tolerance. Training relies heavily on the athlete's tolerance to repetitive strain. Today's ultra-endurance athlete must also follow appropriate nutritional practices in order to recover and prepare for daily training and remain injury free and healthy. Rehydration after exercise, together with the timing and method of increased food intake to cope with heavy training, are essential for optimal performance. Furthermore, the treatment of soft tissue after training or racing is necessary to control inflammation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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