MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2428048799 · doi:10.1055/s-0035-1554643

Estimation of the Maximal Lactate Steady State in Junior Soccer Players

2015· article· en· W2428048799 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Iñaki Llodio, Ibai García-Tabar, Luis Sánchez‐Medina, Javier Courel‐Ibáñez, Esteban M. Gorostiaga

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sports Medicine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlood lactateMathematicsAnaerobic exerciseSteady state (chemistry)HomogeneousIncremental exerciseHeart rateMedicinePhysical therapyInternal medicineChemistryCombinatoricsBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to predict the velocity corresponding to the maximal lactate steady state (MLSS(V)) from non-invasive variables obtained during an incremental maximal running test (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 MLSS(V). During a period of 3 weeks, 20 male junior soccer players performed: (1) a UMTT, and (2) several 20-min CVTs to determine MLSS(V) to a precision of 0.35 km·h(-1). Maximal aerobic velocity (MAV) and velocity at 80% of maximum heart rate (V80%HRmax) were strong predictors of MLSS(V). A regression equation was obtained: MLSS(V)=(1.106·MAV) - (0.309·V(80%HRmax)) - 3.024; R2=0.60. Running velocity during CVT (V(CVT)) and blood lactate at 10 (La10) and 20 (La20) minutes further improved the MLSS(V) prediction: MLSS(V)=V(CVT)+0.26 - (0.812·ΔLa(20-10)); R2=0.66. MLSS(V) can be estimated from MAV and V(80%HRmax) during a single incremental maximal running test among a homogeneous group of soccer players. This estimation can be 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 in team sport players.

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 score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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