MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2621011289 · doi:10.1519/jsc.0000000000002001

Endurance Running Training Individually Guided by HRV in Untrained Women

2017· article· en· W2621011289 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart rate variabilityMedicineContinuous trainingInterval trainingHigh-intensity interval trainingCardiologyTreadmillInternal medicineEndurance trainingPhysical therapyExercise prescriptionHeart ratePhysical medicine and rehabilitationBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

da Silva, DF, Ferraro, ZM, Adamo, KB, and Machado, FA. Endurance running training individually guided by HRV in untrained women. J Strength Cond Res 33(3): 736-746, 2019-The aim of this study was to analyze the effects of heart rate variability (HRV)-guided training compared with a standardized prescription on (a) time to complete 5-km running performance (t5km), (b) peak treadmill running speed (Vpeak) and its time limit (tlim at Vpeak), and (c) autonomic cardiac modulation (i.e., parasympathetic activity and recovery) in untrained women. Additionally, we correlated changes in t5km with changes in Vpeak, tlim at Vpeak and autonomic cardiac modulation. Thirty-six untrained women were divided into a HRV-guided training group (HRVG) and a control group (CG). The CG followed a predefined program, alternating moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) and high-intensity interval training (HIIT). The determination of MICT or HIIT was based on the pretraining HRV for HRVG. MICT was performed if HRV was <mean - 1 SD of previous measures. Otherwise, HIIT was prescribed. The t5km, Vpeak, tlim at Vpeak, parasympathetic activity (i.e., rMSSD) and parasympathetic reactivation (i.e., HRR) were measured before and after the training period. The t5km decreased to a greater magnitude in the HRVG (-17.5 ± 5.6% vs. -14 ± 4.7%; Effect Size (ES) between-group difference = moderate). rMSSD and tlim at Vpeak only improved in HRVG (+23.3 ± 27.8% and +23.6 ± 31.9%, respectively). The HRVG experienced greater improvements in Vpeak and HRR (Vpeak: 10 ± 7.3% vs. 8.2 ± 4.7%; HRR: 19.1 ± 28.1% vs. 12.6 ± 12.9%; ES between-group difference = small). Although HRVG performed less MICT than CG, the volume of MICT was negatively related to changes in t5km. Vpeak changes were highly correlated with t5km changes. The greater improvements in HRVG for t5km and autonomic modulation reinforce the potential application of this tool.

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.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.778
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.299 · 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