Acute effects of intense interval training on running mechanics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aims of this study were to determine if there are significant kinematic changes in running pattern after intense interval workouts, whether duration of recovery affects running kinematics, and whether changes in running economy are related to changes in running kinematics. Seven highly trained male endurance runners (VO2max = 72.3+/-3.3 ml x kg(-1) x min(-1); mean +/- s) performed three interval running workouts of 10 x 400 m at a speed of 5.94+/-0.19 m x s(-1) (356+/-11.2 m x min(-1)) with a minimum of 4 days recovery between runs. Recovery of 60, 120 or 180 s between each 400 m repetition was assigned at random. Before and after each workout, running economy and several kinematic variables were measured at speeds of 3.33 and 4.47 m x s(-1) (200 and 268 m x min(-1)). Speed was found to have a significant effect on shank angle, knee velocity and stride length (P < 0.05). Correlations between changes pre- and post-test for VO2 (ml x kg(-1) x min(-1)) and several kinematic variables were not significant (P > 0.05) at both speeds. In general, duration of recovery was not found to adversely affect running economy or the kinematic variables assessed, possibly because of intra-individual adaptations to fatigue.
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) | 0.000 | 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".