Effects of submaximal and supramaximal interval training on determinants of endurance performance in endurance athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared the effects of submaximal and supramaximal cycling interval training on determinants of exercise performance in moderately endurance‐trained men. Maximal oxygen consumption ( VO 2max ), peak power output (P peak ), and peak and mean anaerobic power were measured before and after 6 weeks (3 sessions/week) of submaximal (85% maximal aerobic power [ MP ], HIIT 85 , n = 8) or supramaximal (115% MP , HIIT 115 , n = 9) interval training to exhaustion in moderately endurance‐trained men. High‐intensity training volume was 47% lower in HIIT 115 vs HIIT 85 (304 ± 77 vs 571 ± 200 min; P < 0.01). Exercise training was generally associated with increased VO 2max ( HIIT 85 : +3.3 ± 3.1 mL/kg/min; HIIT 115 : +3.3 ± 3.6 ml/kg/min; Time effect P = 0.002; Group effect: P = 0.95), P peak ( HIIT 85 : +18 ± 9 W; HIIT 115 : +16 ± 27 W; Time effect P = 0.045; Group effect: P = 0.49), and mean anaerobic power ( HIIT 85 : +0.42 ± 0.69 W/kg; HIIT 115 : +0.55 ± 0.65 W/kg; Time effect P = 0.01; Group effect: P = 0.18). Six weeks of submaximal and supramaximal interval training performed to exhaustion seems to equally improve VO 2max and anaerobic power in endurance‐trained men, despite half the accumulated time spent at the target intensity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".