Evaluating the suitability of supra-PO<sub>peak</sub> verification trials after ramp-incremental exercise to confirm the attainment of maximum O<sub>2</sub> uptake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During exhaustive ramp-incremental cycling tests, the incidence of O2 uptake (V̇o2) plateaus is low. To verify the attainment of maximum V̇o2 (V̇o2max), it is recommended that a trial at a power output (PO) corresponding to 110% of the ramp-derived peak (POpeak) is performed. It remains unclear whether verification trials set at this PO can be tolerated for long enough to allow attainment of V̇o2max. Eleven recreationally trained individuals performed five ramp tests of varying slope (5, 10, 15, 25, and 30 W/min), each followed, in series, by two verification trials: the first at 110% POpeak of the 25 W/min ramp and the second at 110% POpeak attained in the preceding ramp test. Exercise duration of the first verification trial was on average 81 ± 15 s (CV = 9 ± 3%) versus 162 ± 32, 121 ± 24, 103 ± 15, and 73 ± 10 s for the second verification trials at 110% of POpeak of the 5, 10, 15, and 30 W/min ramp tests, respectively ( P < 0.05). Compared with the highest V̇o2 recorded during ramp tests, V̇o2 from the subsequent verification trials was not different for the 5, 10, and 15 W/min ramp tests ( P > 0.05) but was lower for the 25 and 30 W/min ramp tests ( P < 0.05). Verification trials at 110% POpeak of rapidly incrementing ramp tests (i.e., 25 W/min) were not sustained for long enough to allow the attainment of V̇o2max. With commonly used rapidly incrementing ramp tests engendering exhaustion within 8–12 min, verification trials less than POpeak should be preferred as they can be sustained sufficiently long to allow the attainment of V̇o2max.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".