An Extreme Mountain Ultra-Marathon Decreases the Cost of Uphill Walking and Running
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To examine the effects of the world’s most challenging mountain ultramarathon (MUM, 330 km, cumulative elevation gain of +24000 m) on the energy cost and kinematics of different uphill gaits. Methods: Before (PRE) and immediately after (POST) the competition, 19 male athletes performed three submaximal 5-min treadmill exercise trials in a randomized order: walking at 5 km·h-1, +20%; running at 6 km·h-1, +15%; and running at 8 km·h-1, +10%. During the three trials, energy cost was assessed using an indirect calorimetry system and spatiotemporal gait parameters were acquired with a floor-level high-density photoelectric cells system. Results: The average time of the study participants to complete the MUM was 129 h 43 min 48 s (range: 107 h 29 min 24 s to 144 h 21 min 0 s). Energy costs in walking (-11.5 ± 5.5%, P < 0.001), as well as in the first (-7.2 ± 3.1%, P = 0.01) and second (-7.0 ± 3.9%, P = 0.02) running condition decreased between PRE and POST, with a reduction both in the heart rate (-11.3%, -10.0%, and -9.3%, respectively) and oxygen uptake only for the walking condition (-6.5%). No consistent and significant changes in the kinematics variables were detected (P values from 0.10 to 0.96). Conclusion: Though fatigued after completing the MUM, the subjects were still able to maintain their uphill locomotion patterns noted at PRE. The decrease (improvement) in the energy costs was likely due to the prolonged and repetitive walking/running, reflecting a generic improvement in the mechanical efficiency of locomotion after ~130 h of uphill locomotion rather than constraints imposed by the activity on the musculoskeletal structure and function.
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) | 0.000 | 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".