Effects of dominant somatotype on aerobic capacity trainability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study examined the association between dominant somatotype and the effect on aerobic capacity variables of individualised aerobic interval training. METHODS: Forty one white North African subjects (age 21.4+/-1.3 years; Vo2max = 52.8+/-5.7 ml kg(-1) min(-1)) performed three exercise tests 1 week apart (i) an incremental test on a cycle ergometer to determine Vo2max and Vo2 at the second ventilatory threshold (VT2); (ii) a VAM-EVAL track test to determine maximal aerobic speed (vVo2max); and (iii) an exhaustive constant velocity test to determine time limit performed at 100% vVo2max (tlim100). Subjects were divided into four somatometric groups: endomorphs-mesomorphs (Endo-meso; n = 9), mesomorphs (Meso; n = 11), mesomorphs-ectomorphs (Meso-ecto; n = 12), and ectomorphs (Ecto; n = 9). Subjects followed a 12 week training program (two sessions/week). Each endurance training session consisted of the maximal number of successive fractions for each subject. Each fraction consisted of one period of exercise at 100% of vVo2max and one of active recovery at 60% of vVo2max. The duration of each period was equal to half the individual tlim100 duration (153.6+/-39.7 s). After the training program, all subjects were re-evaluated for comparison with pre-test results. RESULTS: Pre- and post-training data were grouped by dominant somatotype. Two way ANOVA revealed significant somatotype-aerobic training interaction effects (p<0.001) for improvements in vVo2max, Vo2max expressed classically and according to allometric scaling, and Vo2 at VT2. There were significant differences among groups post-training: the Meso-ecto and the Meso groups showed the greatest improvements in aerobic capacity. CONCLUSION: The significant somatotype-aerobic training interaction suggests different trainability with intermittent and individualised aerobic training according to somatotype.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".