Determination of the Optimal Load Setting for Arm Crank Anaerobic Testing in Men and Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared different relative load factors for eliciting the highest peak 5 s and mean 30 s absolute power output (watts) during an arm crank 30 s Wingate anaerobic power test in 40 upper body trained and recreationally active men and women. The relative load factor of 0.075 kg · kg(- 1) BM elicited a higher peak 5 s power output than 0.070 and 0.080 kg · kg(- 1) for trained males, and 0.070 was higher than 0.055 and 0.080 kg · kg(- 1) for active males (P<0.05). In trained women, the peak 5 s power output was greatest at 0.065 kg · kg(- 1) and 0.060 kg · kg(- 1) for active women. Mean 30 s power output at a relative load factor of 0.060, 0.065 and 0.070 kg · kg(- 1) was higher than 0.080, 0.085 and 0.090 kg · kg(- 1) in trained men, and mean power output at 0.080 kg · kg(- 1) was lower than all other relative load factors in active men (P<0.05). Mean 30 s power was greatest at 0.050 kg · kg(- 1) for trained and active women. In conclusion, the optimal relative load factor was different for eliciting peak 5 s and mean 30 s power outputs during an arm crank Wingate anaerobic test and depends on training status and gender.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".