Treadmill and Cycle Ergometer Tests are Interchangeable to Monitor Triathletes Annual Training.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to verify the use of a single test to obtain annual training guidelines applicable to multiple modes of training. Eight triathletes (4 females, 4 males) were tested 3 times during their training year (Phase I; Phase II; Phase III) on a treadmill and cycle ergometer. Cardio-respiratory variables were calculated at standardized percentages of maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max; 50-100%). VO2max differences between tests reached 6% in every testing session (p ≤ 0.01). VO2max was stable for both tests throughout the season. The ANOVA (3 phases x 2 tests x 6 intensities) demonstrated that there was a significant difference for heart rate (HRs; p ≤ 0.05) between tests in Phase I only. However, the nonparametric sign test did not show any significant differences in any phase. These results demonstrated that triathletes could use the relationship between HR and % VO2max collected during a treadmill or a cycle ergometer test to obtain interchangeable reference HRs for monitoring their running and cycling training bouts in high volume and/or high intensity phases of their training year.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".