The influence of training and maturity status on girls’ responses to short-term, high-intensity upper- and lower-body exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A maturational threshold has been suggested to be present in young peoples' responses to exercise, with significant influences of training status evidenced only above this threshold. The presence of such a threshold has not been investigated for short-term, high-intensity exercise. To address this, we investigated the relationship between swim-training status and maturity on the power output, pulmonary gas exchange, and metabolic responses to an upper- and lower-body Wingate anaerobic test (WAnT). Girls at 3 stages of maturity participated:, prepubertal (Pre: 8 trained (T), 10 untrained (UT)), pubertal (Pub: 9 T, 15 UT), and postpubertal (Post: 8 T, 10 UT). At all maturity stages, T exhibited higher peak power (PP) and mean power (MP) during upper-body exercise (PP: Pre, T, 163 ± 20 vs. UT, 124 ± 29; Pub, T, 230 ± 42 vs. UT, 173 ± 41; Post, T, 245 ± 41 vs. UT, 190 ± 40 W; MP: Pre, T, 130 ± 23 vs. UT, 85 ± 26; Pub, T, 184 ± 37 vs. UT, 123 ± 38; Post, T, 200 ± 30 vs. UT, 150 ± 15 W; all p < 0.05) but not lower-body exercise, whilst the fatigue index was significantly lower in T for both exercise modalities. Irrespective of maturity, the oxidative contribution, calculated by the area under the oxygen uptake response profile, was not influenced by training status. No interaction was evident between training status and maturity, with similar magnitudes of difference between T and UT at all 3 maturity stages. These results suggest that there is no maturational threshold which must be surpassed for significant influences of training status to be manifest in the "anaerobic" exercise performance of young girls.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".