Comparison of performance-related responses to an endurance running training between untrained men and women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The adherence on endurance running events is increasing exponentially around the World in both previously untrained men and women, thus the incorporation of more appropriate and individualized training approaches are required. It is not known if male and female untrained runners differ in the responses to endurance running training on performancerelated variables. Objective: We aimed to compare performance-related responses to an endurance running training program between untrained men and women. Material and method: Sixteen participants (8 men and 8 women) were paired in the baseline by age, body mass index, and percentage in which time to complete 5 km (t5km) represented from the average of best 50 runners t5km in the greatest regional race for each gender. They completed an 11-week training protocol alternating high-intensity interval training and moderateintensity continuous running, three times per week, in a running track. In the week 1 and 11 of the protocol (baseline and post-training weeks), peak running velocity at treadmill (Vpeak), time limit (tlim) at 100% Vpeak, t5km, and the index rMSSD of heart rate variability (HRV) were measured for cardiac autonomic function. Baseline gender-differences were accounted in the analysis. Results: Male and female significantly improved Vpeak (9.4 ± 1.7% and 7.2 ± 1.7%, respectively) and t5km (-13.0 ± 1.8% for both), and no gender-related differences for the adaptations in these two variables were observed. The tlim at 100% Vpeak and rMSSD did not change across the training period in both groups. Percentage of change for men was “moderately” higher than for women for rMSSD (33.4 ± 40.7% vs. 13.9 ± 21.4%), although statistically non-significant. Conclusion: Men and women responses to training were similar with regards to their running performance and cardiac autonomic function. With regards to practical application, Vpeak and its tlim can be applied in exercise settings for the prescription of moderate- to high-intensity running training with similar benefits regardless of the biological gender
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) | 0.001 | 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".