Does blood lactate predict the chronic adaptive response to training: A comparison of traditional and talk test prescription methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to test the hypotheses (i) that interindividual variability in acute blood lactate responses during exercise at 65% of peak work rate (WR peak ; relative WR peak protocol (REL)) will predict variability in the chronic responses to exercise training and (ii) that exercising at an intensity that causes uncomfortable speech production (negative talk test (TT) stage (NEG)) elicits high acute blood lactate responses and large adaptations to training. Twenty-eight participants completed 4 weeks of exercise training consisting of REL (n = 14) or NEG (TT, n = 14). Fifteen additional participants were assigned to a no-exercise control group (n = 15). In REL, acute blood lactate responses during the first training session significantly predicted changes in peak oxygen consumption (r = 0.69) after training. TT resulted in consistently high acute blood lactate responses. REL and TT improved (p < 0.05) peak oxygen consumption, WR peak , and work rate at the onset of blood lactate accumulation (WR OBLA ). Despite nonsignificance, small to medium between-group effect sizes for changes in peak oxygen consumption, WR peak , and WR OBLA and a higher work rate, heart rate, rating of perceived exertion, and blood lactate during training at NEG support the potential superiority of TT over REL. When exercise is prescribed using a traditional method (a fixed percentage of WR peak ; REL), acute metabolic stress may partly explain the variance in the adaptations to training. In addition, TT elicited significant increases in peak oxygen consumption, WR peak , and WR OBLA , and although our small sample size limits our ability to confidently compare training adaptations between groups, our preliminary results suggest that future investigations with larger sample sizes should assess the potential superiority of TT over REL.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".