Visual Impairment does not Limit Training Effects in Development of Aerobic and Anaerobic Capacity in Tandem Cyclists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aimed to investigate the differences in the effects of 7-month training on aerobic and anaerobic capacity in tandem cycling athletes with and without visual impairment. In this study, Polish elite (n=13) and sub-elite (n=13) visually impaired (VI) (n=13; 40.8 ±12.8 years) and properly sighted (PS) (n=13; 36.7 ±12.2 years) tandem-cycling athletes participated voluntarily in 7-month routine training. The following pre-/post-training measurements were conducted on separate days: maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) was estimated with age correction using the Physical Working Capacity test on a bicycle ergometer according to the Astrand-Ryhming method. Maximal power output (Pmax) was evaluated using the Quebec test on a bicycle ergometer. At baseline, VO2max (47.8 ±14.1 vs 42.0 ±8.3 ml/kg/min, respectively) and Pmax (11.5 ±1.5 vs 11.5 ±1.0 W/kg) did not differ significantly between PS and VI cyclists. However, differences in aerobic capacity were considered as clinically significant. Two-way ANOVA revealed that after 7 month training, there were statistically significant increases in VO2max (p=0.003) and Pmax (p=0.009) among VI (VO2max, +9.1%; Pmax, +6.3%) and PS (VO2max, +9.1%; Pmax, +11.7%) cyclists, however, no time × visual impairment interaction effect was found (VO2max, p=0.467; Pmax, p=0.364). After training, VO2max (p=0.03), but not Pmax (p=0.13), was significantly greater in elite compared to sub-elite tandem cyclists. VI and PS tandem cyclists showed similar rates of improvement in VO2max and Pmax after 7-month training. VO2max was a significant determinant of success in tandem cycling. This is one of the first studies providing reference values for aerobic and anaerobic capacity in visually impaired cyclists.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".