MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106598687 · doi:10.1136/bjsm.37.5.441

Body position affects performance in untrained cyclists

2003· article· en· W2106598687 on OpenAlexaff
Maureen C. Ashe, G. C. Scroop, P I Frisken, C A Amery, Marcus Wilkins, K M Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsTelus (Canada)University of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCyclingHeart rateVO2 maxMedicineBody positionVentilation (architecture)Physical therapyRespiratory minute volumeWorkloadPhysical medicine and rehabilitationVentilatory thresholdExercise physiologyCardiologyInternal medicineRespiratory systemBlood pressurePhysicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To compare cardiovascular and ventilatory variables in upright versus aero cycle ergometry at submaximal and maximal exercise intensities in untrained cyclists. METHOD: Ten physically active men (mean (SD) age 19.1 (1.10) years) who were unfamiliar with aerobars underwent maximal exercise testing and steady state cycling at 50, 100, and 150 W. RESULTS: Participants had significantly greater maxima for oxygen uptake (VO2), ventilation, heart rate, and workload maximum in the upright position. During steady state cycling at the three workloads, VO2 (ml/kg/min) and gross mechanical efficiency were significantly greater in the upright position. CONCLUSIONS: In untrained subjects performing with maximal effort, the upright position permits greater VO2, ventilation, heart rate, and workload maxima. Further, in the steady state, exercise cycling may be less costly in the upright position. For this reason, untrained cyclists need to weigh body position effects against the well known aerodynamic advantages of the aero position.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations61
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207