Heart rate during basketball game play and volleyball drills accurately predicts oxygen uptake and energy expenditure.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: There is currently little information regarding the ability of metabolic prediction equations to accurately predict oxygen uptake and exercise intensity from heart rate (HR) during intermittent sport. The purpose of the present study was to develop and, cross-validate equations appropriate for accurately predicting oxygen cost (VO2) and energy expenditure from HR during intermittent sport participation. METHODS: Eleven healthy adult males (19.9±1.1yrs) were recruited to establish the relationship between %VO2peak and %HRmax during low-intensity steady state endurance (END), moderate-intensity interval (MOD) and high intensity-interval exercise (HI), as performed on a cycle ergometer. Three equations (END, MOD, and HI) for predicting %VO2peak based on %HRmax were developed. HR and VO2 were directly measured during basketball games (6 male, 20.8±1.0 yrs; 6 female, 20.0±1.3yrs) and volleyball drills (12 female; 20.8±1.0yrs). Comparisons were made between measured and predicted VO2 and energy expenditure using the 3 equations developed and 2 previously published equations. RESULTS: The END and MOD equations accurately predicted VO2 and energy expenditure, while the HI equation underestimated, and the previously published equations systematically overestimated VO2 and energy expenditure. CONCLUSION: Intermittent sport VO2 and energy expenditure can be accurately predicted from heart rate data using either the END (%VO2peak=%HRmax x 1.008-17.17) or MOD (%VO2peak=%HRmax x 1.2-32) equations. These 2 simple equations provide an accessible and cost-effective method for accurate estimation of exercise intensity and energy expenditure during intermittent sport.
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) | 0.001 | 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".