A New Short Track Test to Estimate the VO2max and Maximal Aerobic Speed in Well-Trained Runners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pallarés, JG, Cerezuela-Espejo, V, Morán-Navarro, R, Martínez-Cava, A, Conesa, E, and Courel-Ibáñez, J. A new short track test to estimate the V[Combining Dot Above]O2max and maximal aerobic speed in well-trained runners. J Strength Cond Res 33(5): 1216-1221, 2019-This study was designed to validate a new short track test (Track(1:1)) to estimate running performance parameters maximal oxygen uptake (V[Combining Dot Above]O2max) and maximal aerobic speed (MAS), based on a laboratory treadmill protocol and gas exchange data analysis (Lab(1:1)). In addition, we compared the results with the University of Montreal Track Test (UMTT). Twenty-two well-trained male athletes (V[Combining Dot Above]O2max 60.3 ± 5.9 ml·kg·min; MAS ranged from 17.0 to 20.3 km·h) performed 4 testing protocols: 2 in laboratory (Lab(1:1)-pre and Lab(1:1)) and 2 in the field (UMTT and Track(1:1)). The Lab(1:1)-pre was designed to determine individuals' Vpeak and set initial speeds for the subsequent Lab(1:1) short ramp graded exercise testing protocol, starting at 13 km·h less than each athlete's Vpeak, with 1 km·h increments per minute until exhaustion. The Track(1:1) was a reproduction of the Lab(1:1) protocol in the field. A novel equation was yielded to estimate the V[Combining Dot Above]O2max from the Vpeak achieved in the Track(1:1). Results revealed that the UMTT significantly underestimated the Vpeak (-4.2%; bias = -0.8 km·h; p < 0.05), which notably altered the estimations (MAS: -2.6%, bias = -0.5 km·h; V[Combining Dot Above]O2max: 4.7%, bias = 2.9 ml·kg·min). In turn, data from Track(1:1) were very similar to the laboratory test and gas exchange methods (Vpeak: -0.6%, bias = <0.1 km·h; MAS: 0.3%, bias = <0.1 km·h; V[Combining Dot Above]O2max: 0.4%, bias = 0.2 ml·kg·min, p > 0.05). Thus, the current Track(1:1) test emerges as a better alternative than the UMTT to estimate maximal running performance parameters in well-trained and highly trained athletes on the field.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".