The relationship between oxygen uptake reserve and heart rate reserve is affected by intensity and duration during aerobic exercise at constant work rate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between the percentage of heart rate reserve (%HRR) and percentage of oxygen uptake reserve (%VO₂R) has been recommended for prescribing aerobic exercise intensity. However, this relationship was derived from progressive maximal exercise testing data, and the stability of the relationship during prolonged exercise at a constant work rate has not been established. The main aim of this study was to investigate the stability of the %VO₂R-%HRR relationship during prolonged treadmill exercise bouts performed at 3 different constant work rates. Twenty-eight men performed 4 exercise tests: (i) a ramp-incremental maximal exercise test to determine maximal heart rate (HR(max)) and maximal oxygen uptake (VO₂(max)) and (ii) three 40-min exercise bouts at 60%, 70%, and 80% VO₂R. HR and VO₂ significantly increased over time and were influenced by exercise intensity (p < 0.001 and p = 0.004, respectively). A 1:1 relationship between %HRR and %VO₂R, and between %HRR and %VO₂(max), was not observed, with mean differences of 8% (t = 5.2, p < 0.001) and 6% (t = 4.8, p < 0.001), respectively. The VO₂ values predicted from the ACSM running equation were all significantly higher than the observed VO₂ values (p < 0.001 for all comparisons), whereas a difference for HR was observed only for the tenth min of exercise at 80% VO₂R (p = 0.041). In conclusion, the main finding of this study was that the %HRR-%VO₂R relationship determined by linear regression, obtained from progressive maximal exercise testing, did not apply to prolonged treadmill running performed at 3 work rates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".