Cycling peak power in obese and lean 6- to 8-year-old girls and boys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the possible effect of the difference in percentage body fat (%BF) and fat-free mass (FFM) on cycling peak power (CPP) in 6- to 8-year-old obese and lean untrained girls and boys. Obese (35 girls, 35 boys) and lean (35 girls, 35 boys) children were measured for obesity, %BF, calculated from skinfold measurements. FFM was calculated as body mass (BM) minus body fat. A force-velocity test on a cycle ergometer was used to measure CPP. CPP was related to anthropometric variables using standard and allometric models. CPP in absolute terms was higher in obese children than in lean children irrespective of gender. BM-related CPP was significantly lower in obese children than in lean ones, whereas no effect of obesity appeared on FFM-related CPP. Velocity at CPP (Vopt) was significantly lower and force at CPP (Fopt) was significantly higher in girls than in boys. Muscle power production was unaffected by obesity in children. Low BM-related CPP could explain the difficulty of taking up physical activities that are body-mass related in obese children. Gender difference for Vopt and Fopt shows that girls and boys may have different maturation patterns affecting CPP.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".