The Training Characteristics of Recreational-Level Triathletes: Influence on Fatigue and Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about how recreational triathletes prepare for an Olympic distance event. The aim of this study was to identify the training characteristics of recreational-level triathletes within the competition period and assess how their preparation for a triathlon influences their health and their levels of fatigue. During the 6 weeks prior to, and the 2 weeks after, an Olympic distance triathlon, nine recreational athletes (five males, four females) completed a daily training log. Participants answered the Daily Analysis of Life Demands Questionnaire (DALDA), the Training Distress Scale (TDS) and the Alberta Swim Fatigue and Health Questionnaire weekly. The Recovery-Stress Questionnaire (REST-Q) was completed at the beginning of the study, on the day before the competition, and at the end of week 8. Training loads were calculated using session-based rating of perceived exertion (sRPE). The data from every week of training was compared to week 1 to determine how athletes’ training and health changed throughout the study. No changes in training loads, duration or training intensity distribution were seen in the weeks leading up to the competition. Training duration was significantly reduced in week 6 (p = 0.041, d = 1.58, 95% CI = 6.9, 421.9), while the number of sessions was reduced in week 6 (Z = 2.32, p = 0.02, ES = 0.88) and week 7 (Z = 2.31, p = 0.02, ES = 0.87). Training was characterized by large weekly variations in training loads and a high training intensity. No significant changes were seen in the DALDA, TDS or REST-Q questionnaire scores throughout the 8 weeks. Despite large spikes in training load and a high overall training intensity, these recreational-level triathletes were able to maintain their health in the 6 weeks of training prior to an Olympic distance triathlon.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".