Assessment of two methods to determine the relative contributions of the aerobic and anaerobic energy systems in racehorses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A prospective, randomized, controlled study was designed to determine relative aerobic and anaerobic (lactic and alactic) contributions at supramaximal exercise intensities using two different methods. Thoroughbred racehorses ( n = 5) performed a maximal rate of oxygen consumption (V̇o 2max ) test and three supramaximal treadmill runs (105, 115, and 125% V̇o 2max ). Blood lactate concentration (BL) was measured at rest, every 15 s during runs, and 2, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 min postexercise. In method 1, oxygen demand was calculated for each supramaximal intensity based on the V̇o 2max test, and relative aerobic and anaerobic contributions were calculated from measured V̇o 2 and the accumulated oxygen deficit. In method 2, aerobic contribution was calculated using the trapezoidal method to determine V̇o 2 during exercise. A monoexponential model was fitted to the postexercise V̇o 2 curve. Alactic contribution was calculated using the coefficients of this model. Lactate anaerobic contribution was calculated by multiplying the peak to resting change in BL by 3. Linear mixed-effects models were used to examine the effects of exercise intensity and method (as fixed effects) on measured outcomes ( P ≤ 0.05). Relative aerobic and anaerobic contributions were not different between methods ( P = 0.20). Horses’ mean contributions were 81.4, 77.6, and 72.5% (aerobic), and 18.5, 22.3, and 27.4% (anaerobic) at 105, 115, and 125% V̇o 2max , respectively. Individual alactic anaerobic energy was not different between supramaximal exercise intensities ( P = 0.43) and was negligible, contributing a mean of 0.11% of the total energy. Relative energy contributions can be calculated using measured V̇o 2 and BL in situations where the exercise intensity is unknown. Understanding relative metabolic demands could help develop tailored training programs. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Relative energy contributions of horses can be calculated using measured V̇o 2 and BL in situations where the exercise intensity is unknown. Horses’ mean contributions were 81.4, 77.6, and 72.5% (aerobic), and 18.5, 22.3, and 27.4% (anaerobic) at 105, 115, and 125% of V̇o 2max , respectively. Individual alactic capacity was unaltered between supramaximal exercise intensities and accounted for a mean contribution of 0.11% of energy use.
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 | 0.001 | 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".