MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Time course and mechanisms of adaptations in cardiorespiratory fitness with endurance training in older and young men

2010· article· en· W2164193152 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physiology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCardiorespiratory fitnessVO2 maxInternal medicineStroke volumeMedicinePhysical fitnessEndurance trainingCardiac outputPhysical therapyHeart ratePsychologyCardiologyEndocrinologyHemodynamicsBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The time-course and mechanisms of adaptation of cardiorespiratory fitness were examined in 8 older (O) (68 +/- 7 yr old) and 8 young (Y) (23 +/- 5 yr old) men pretraining and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 wk of training. Training was performed on a cycle ergometer three times per week for 45 min at approximately 70% of maximal oxygen uptake (Vo(2 max)). Vo(2 max) increased within 3 wk with further increases observed posttraining in both O (+31%) and Y (+18%), (P < 0.05). Maximal cardiac output (Q(max), open-circuit acetylene) and stroke volume were higher in O and Y after 3 wk with further increases after 9 wk of training (P < 0.05). Maximal arterial-venous oxygen difference (a-vO(2 diff)) was higher at weeks 3 and 6 and posttraining compared with pretraining in O and Y (P < 0.05). In O, approximately 69% of the increase in Vo(2 max) from pre- to posttraining was explained by an increased Q(max) with the remaining approximately 31% explained by a widened a-vO(2 diff). This proportion of Q and a-vO(2 diff) contributions to the increase in Vo(2 max) was consistent throughout testing in O. In Y, 56% of the pre- to posttraining increase in Vo(2 max) was attributed to a greater Q(max) and 44% to a widened a-vO(2 diff). Early adaptations (first 3 wk) mainly relied on a widened maximal a-vO(2 diff) (approximately 66%) whereas further increases in Vo(2 max) were exclusively explained by a greater Q(max). In conclusion, with short-term training O and Y significantly increased their Vo(2 max); however, the proportion of Vo(2 max) increase explained by Q(max) and maximal a-vO(2 diff) throughout training showed a different pattern by age group.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it