Applicability of Maximal Ergometer Testing and Sprint Performance in Adolescent Endurance and Sprint Trained Swimmers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sprint swimming is a short duration, high intensity sport requiring a relatively greater contribution of energy from anaerobic metabolism. Understanding energy system utilization for the classification of a competitive swimmer (sprint or distance) may be useful for both training prescription and event specialization. The relationship between anaerobic swim ergometer testing and adolescent sprint swimming performance has not been investigated. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance and physiological responses during a maximal all-out ergometer test as well as the maximal anaerobic lactate test in a group of sprint vs. middle-distance specialized swimmers. Sixteen (n = 16) competitive swimmers (mean ± standard deviation (SD), age 16.8 ± 0.7 year; body mass 67.3 ± 9.8 kg) were categorized into two gender matched groups: sprint (n = 8) and middle-distance (n = 8). Each athlete performed (1) a 45 s swim ergometer maximal test to determine peak and mean power output (Watts (W)), (2) a MANLT test to determine peak and average velocity as well as the post-exercise lactate response, and (3) a 50 m swim time trial. The sprint group showed a higher mean (p = 0.026) and peak (p = 0.031) velocity during the MANLT. In addition, blood lactate concentration was significantly (p < 0.01) higher in the sprint vs. middle-distance trained group at 3 and 12 min after completion of the MANLT (3-min post 11.29 ± 2.32 vs. 9.55 ± 3.48 mmol/L; 12-min post 8.23 ± 2.28 vs. 7.05 ± 2.47 mmol/L). The power output during the 45 s all-out swimming ergometer test was higher in the sprint trained group. The results of this study demonstrate the anaerobic contribution to sprint swimming measured during an all-out dryland ergometer test.
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 | 0.000 | 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".