MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Peak Physiological Responses In Cycling And A New Underwater Swimming Test In Highly Trained Artistic Swimmers

2019· article· en· W2954810659 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Viana, David J. Bentley, Adam J. Pinos, Lars MacNaughton, Heather M. Logan-Sprenger

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsCanadian Sport Centre PacificOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCycle ergometerCyclingVO2 maxAerobic capacityPhysical therapyAnimal scienceMedicineMathematicsHeart rateInternal medicineBlood pressureBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) measured in an underwater swim test (UWST) and during a maximal aerobic capacity test on a cycle ergometer (Velotron Pro, Seattle, WA, USA). METHODS: Highly trained artistic swimmers (n=14, 14.9 ± 1.9 yrs) completed a synchronised swimming specific test (275m UWST) in a 25m pool an incremental exercise test to volitional fatigue (15 W every 30 sec to exhaustion) on a cycle ergometer to determine VO2peak. The UWST and maximal aerobic capacity testing occurred on consecutive days. The 275m UWST comprised 50m freestyle followed by 25m underwater breast stroke three times, with an additional 50m freestyle. During the UWST participants wore water-resistant HR monitors (Polar OH1) and had expired gases collected (Cosmed K4 b2) in the 20 sec immediately upon completion of the UWST to determine VO2peak. During the cycle test, HR (Polar Electro, Kempele, Finland) and expired gases were collected using a MOXUS metabolic cart (AEI Technologies, Pittsburgh, PA, USA). Peak physical work capacity (PWC) (W) was measured as the highest completed 30 sec stage of the test. RESULTS: VO2peak achieved after the UWST (44.3 ± 8.0 mL/kg/min) and cycle ergometer (42.3 ± 7.2 mL/kg/min) did not differ significantly from each other (t=-0.59, df=13, p=0.563, d=0.21). HRpeak was significantly lower during the UWST (162.5 ± 18.4 bpm) (t=7.812, df=12, p<0.00, d=2.10) when compared to the cycle test (194.6 ± 11.6 bpm) . The UWST time and PWC during the bike test were not significantly correlated to each other (r=-0.25, p=0.393). There was no significant correlation between the VO2peak achieved during the UWST and the duration of the UWST (r=-0.39, p=0.17). HRpeak during the UWST was significantly correlated with the VO2peak (r=0.62 p=0.03 CI95 [38.93, 46.44]) and HRpeak achieved on the cycle ergometer (r=0.59, p=0.04 CI95 [188.79, 200.92]). CONCLUSIONS: The similarities in VO2 data during the UWST and VO2peak protocol suggest the UWST is a valid method of determining VO2peak in highly trained artistic swimmers. A goal when selecting a VO2 protocol is to mimic the demands of the sport. In this population, the UWST is likely better than the cycle ergometer, as the modality of swimming with breath holding more closely matches the demands of an artistic swim routine.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicSports Performance and Training→French-language works237,207→