Interval training at 95% and 100% of the velocity at <i>V</i>O<sub>2 max</sub>: effects on aerobic physiological indexes and running performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to analyze the effect of two different high-intensity interval training (HIT) programs on selected aerobic physiological indices and 1500 and 5000 m running performance in well-trained runners. The following tests were completed (n=17): (i) incremental treadmill test to determine maximal oxygen uptake (VO2 max), running velocity associated with VO2 max (vVO2 max), and the velocity corresponding to 3.5 mmol/L of blood lactate concentration (vOBLA); (ii) submaximal constant-intensity test to determine running economy (RE); and (iii) 1500 and 5000 m time trials on a 400 m track. Runners were then randomized into 95% vVO2 max or 100% vVO2 max groups, and undertook a 4 week training program consisting of 2 HIT sessions (performed at 95% or 100% vVO2 max, respectively) and 4 submaximal run sessions per week. Runners were retested on all parameters at the completion of the training program. The VO2 max values were not different after training for both groups. There was a significant increase in post-training vVO2 max, RE, and 1500 m running performance in the 100% vVO2 max group. The vOBLA and 5000 m running performance were significantly higher after the training period for both groups. We conclude that vOBLA and 5000 m running performance can be significantly improved in well-trained runners using a 4 week training program consisting of 2 HIT sessions (performed at 95% or 100% vVO2 max) and 4 submaximal run sessions per week. However, the improvement in vVO2 max, RE, and 1500 m running performance seems to be dependent on the HIT program at 100% vVO2 max.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".