Comparison of two warm-up models for obese and normal-weight adults performing supramaximal cycling exercise
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
=23.8 (5.8) ml/min/kg] participated in a cross-over randomized study, and all underwent a supramaximal cycling test (SCT) following 5 minutes of two models of warm-up pedalled at a constant velocity of 60 rpm. In the first experimental condition, the warm-up was set at 50% of maximal aerobic power (WU50%MAP). In the second experimental condition, the intensity was set at 50% of maximal heart rate (WU50%MHR). During both experimental conditions the rating of perceived exertion (RPE) at the end of the warm-up and the performance reduction in percentage (ΔPr%) during the SCT were recorded. During the WU50%MAP experimental condition, obese (OB) adults showed higher values of post-warm-up heart rate (~30%) than in the normal weight (NW) group (p<0.01). In addition, the RPE scores determined after the warm-up were significantly higher in OB compared to NW (~30%; p<0.01). However, after the WU50%MHR experimental condition, no significant differences remained between OB and NW. Moreover, the analyses showed a significant positive association between the elevated heart rate values observed after WU50%MAP and both RPE and ΔPr% (r= 0.71 and r =0.81, p <0.05 respectively). In contrast to NW individuals, the WU50%MHR seems to be more suitable for the OB group undergoing the SCT given that WU50%MAP affected supramaximal cycling performances.
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 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 it