MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Effects Of Differing 2 Minute Pacing Strategies On VO2, Muscle Deoxygenation And Performance

2016· article· en· W2522601246 on OpenAlexaff
Bashar Balakirishan, Michael Bitel, Glen R. Belfry

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTime trialBlood lactateCycle ergometerAnimal scienceDeoxygenationVO2 maxCyclingMedicineCardiologyInternal medicinePhysical therapyChemistryHeart rateBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To examine the physiological and performance responses of 3 different pacing strategies during a 2 min cycling trial on well trained collegiate track athletes. METHODS: 5 Male (VO2peak = 54.81±7.49 ml/kg/min; Power output peak (POpeak) = 402.5±57.57 watts) and 6 female (VO2peak = 43.36±5.54 ml/kg/min; POpeak = 274.33±27.93 watts) varsity track athletes performed 3 pacing strategies on a cycle ergometer within a 10 day period. Test 1: A 3 min all out trial (AO) determined critical power and 2 min performance. Test 2: A constant power strategy (CON) calculated from the CP test with a final 30 s maximal effort. Test 3: A parabolic race strategy (PRS) utilising an initial 30 s period performed 5% above CON, followed by 60 s at 5% below CON and then a 30 s maximal effort finish. Breath by breath pulmonary VO2 and muscle deoxygenation (HHb) data from the vastus lateralis were collected from -10 to 120 s during the 3 pacing strategies. Blood lactate concentrations were collected pre and post all trials. RESULTS: Mean VO2 was different across the 3 trials (AO: 2.87±0.74L/min, CON: 2.56±0.68L/min, PRS: 2.71±0.71L/min, p<0.05). As was mean VO2 from -10 to 30 s, where AO elicited the highest VO2 and CON elicited the lowest (AO: 2.1±0.43L/min, CON: 1.61±0.46L/min, PRS: 1.76±0.47L/min, p<0.05). VO2 from 31 to 60 s in all trials was observed to be greater in AO than in both CON and PRS (AO: 3.06±0.82L/min, CON: 2.60±0.71L/min, PRS: 2.73±0.73L/min, p<0.05). Only AO VO2 was different from CON during 61 to 90 s of all trials (AO: 3.15±0.88L/min, CON: 2.95±0.79L/min, PRS: 3.06±0.82L/min, p<0.05), while there were no differences in mean VO2 over the final 30 seconds. Differences in % HHb change were only observed from -10 to 30 s of all trials. AO had a greater change than both CON and PRS from baseline (AO: 83.72±5.26%, CON: 74.42±8.27%, PRS: 73.39±10.41%, p<0.05). Mean PO of CON and PRS were higher than AO (AO: 335.88±88W, CON: 342.56±86.67W, PRS: 341.39±85.9W, p<0.05). Post-trial lactate levels for AO were higher than CON, but no differences were observed between CON and PRS (AO: 15.78±1.89mmol/L, CON: 13.84±2.1mmol/L, PRS: 14.19±2.34mmol/L, p<0.05). CONCLUSION: CON and PRS are superior strategies compared to AO for 2 min performance, despite the slower rate of adjustment of VO2 and HHb, and the lower glycolytic phosphorylation contributions.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicCardiovascular and exercise physiology→French-language works237,207→