Economy of running: beyond the measurement of oxygen uptake
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare running economy across three submaximal speeds expressed as both oxygen cost (mlxkg(-1)xkm(-1)) and the energy required to cover a given distance (kcalxkg(-1)xkm(-1)) in a group of trained male distance runners. It was hypothesized that expressing running economy in terms of caloric unit cost would be more sensitive to changes in speed than oxygen cost by accounting for differences associated with substrate utilization. Sixteen highly trained male distance runners [maximal oxygen uptake (Vo(2max)) 66.5 +/- 5.6 mlxkg(-1)xmin(-1), body mass 67.9 +/- 7.3 kg, height 177.6 +/- 7.0 cm, age 24.6 +/- 5.0 yr] ran on a motorized treadmill for 5 min with a gradient of 0% at speeds corresponding to 75%, 85%, and 95% of speed at lactate threshold with 5-min rest between stages. Oxygen uptake was measured via open-circuit calorimetry. Average oxygen cost was 221 +/- 19, 217 +/- 15, and 221 +/- 13 mlxkg(-1)xkm(-1), respectively. Caloric unit cost was 1.05 +/- 0.09, 1.07 +/- 0.08, and 1.11 +/- 0.07 kcalxkg(-1)xkm(-1) at the three trial speeds, respectively. There was no difference in oxygen cost with respect to speed (P = 0.657); however, caloric unit cost significantly increased with speed (P < 0.001). It was concluded that expression of running economy in terms of caloric unit cost is more sensitive to changes in speed and is a more valuable expression of running economy than oxygen uptake, even when normalized per distance traveled.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it