Effect of Work and Recovery Durations on W′ Reconstitution during Intermittent Exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We recently presented an integrating model of the curvature constant of the hyperbolic power-time relationship (W') that permits the calculation of the W' balance (W'BAL) remaining at any time during intermittent exercise. Although a relationship between recovery power and the rate of W' recovery was demonstrated, the effect of the length of work or recovery intervals remains unclear. METHODS: After determining VO2max, critical power, and W', 11 subjects completed six separate exercise tests on a cycle ergometer on different days, and in random order. Tests consisted of a period of intermittent severe-intensity exercise until the subject depleted approximately 50% of their predicted W'BAL, followed by a constant work rate (CWR) exercise bout until exhaustion. Work rates were kept constant between trials; however, either work or recovery durations during intermittent exercise were varied. The actual W' measured during the CWR (W'ACT) was compared with the amount of W' predicted to be available by the W'BAL model. RESULTS: Although some differences between W'BAL and W'ACT were noted, these amounted to only -1.6 ± 1.1 kJ when averaged across all conditions. The W'ACT was linearly correlated with the difference between VO2 at the start of CWR and VO2max (r = 0.79, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The W'BAL model provided a generally robust prediction of CWR W'. There may exist a physiological optimum formulation of work and recovery intervals such that baseline VO2 can be minimized, leading to an enhancement of subsequent exercise tolerance. These results may have important implications for athletic training and racing.
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".