MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2344567654 · doi:10.1055/s-0042-102653

Estimation of the Maximal Lactate Steady State in Endurance Runners

2016· article· en· W2344567654 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Iñaki Llodio, Esteban M. Gorostiaga, Ibai García-Tabar, Cristina Granados, Luis Sánchez‐Medina

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sports Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlood lactateSteady state (chemistry)MathematicsLactate thresholdHomogeneousAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChemistryMedicineCombinatoricsInternal medicineChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to predict the velocity corresponding to the maximal lactate steady state (MLSSV) from non-invasive variables obtained during a maximal multistage running field test (modified University of Montreal Track Test, UMTT), and to determine whether a single constant velocity test (CVT), performed several days after the UMTT, could estimate the MLSSV. Within 4-5 weeks, 20 male runners performed: 1) a modified UMTT, and 2) several 30 min CVTs to determine MLSSV to a precision of 0.25 km·h(-1). Maximal aerobic velocity (MAV) was the best predictor of MLSSV. A regression equation was obtained: MLSSV=1.425+(0.756·MAV); R(2)=0.63. Running velocity during the CVT (VCVT) and blood lactate at 6 (La6) and 30 (La30) min further improved the MLSSV prediction: MLSSV=VCVT+0.503 - (0.266·ΔLa30-6); R(2)=0.66. MLSSV can be estimated from MAV during a single maximal multistage running field test among a homogeneous group of trained runners. This estimation can be further improved by performing an additional CVT. In terms of accuracy, simplicity and cost-effectiveness, the reported regression equations can be used for the assessment and training prescription of endurance runners.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.279
Threshold uncertainty score0.234

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207