Do Obese Children Perceive Submaximal and Maximal Exertion Differently?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined how obese children perceive a maximal cardiorespiratory fitness test compared with a submaximal cardiorespiratory fitness test. Twenty-one obese children (body mass index ≥95th percentile, ages 10-17 years) completed maximal and submaximal cardiorespiratory fitness tests on 2 separate occasions. Oxygen consumption (VO2) and overall perceived exertion (Borg 15-category scale) were measured in both fitness tests. At comparable workloads, perceived exertion was rated significantly higher (P < 0.001) in the submaximal cardiorespiratory fitness test compared with the maximal cardiorespiratory fitness test. The submaximal cardiorespiratory fitness test was significantly longer than the maximal test (14:21 ± 04:04 seconds vs. 12:48 ± 03:27 seconds, P < 0.001). Our data indicate that at the same relative intensity, obese children report comparable or even higher perceived exertion during submaximal fitness testing than during maximal fitness testing. Perceived exertion in a sample of children and youth with obesity may be influenced by test duration and protocol design.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".