Prediction of Mountain Marathon Performance with Anaerobic Capacity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE Anaerobic capacity, aerobic capacity and morphology were assessed for their potential effects on race performance during a 50 km mountain ultra‐marathon. HYPOTHESIS It was hypothesized that anaerobic and aerobic capacities would be the best predictors of finishing times in this ultra‐marathon. METHODS Ten healthy males were recruited to participate in this study. Their average height was 1.76±0.09 m, body mass was 70.75±8.04 kg, Body Mass Index was 22.9±1.85 kg·m −2 , body fat percentage was 21.98±4.75 %, and age was 47.6±11.0 years. The office of research ethics at SFU approved the study and each volunteer gave a signed consent prior to participation. Each volunteer's anaerobic capacity was evaluated using a Wingate test on a seated cycle ergometer and aerobic capacity was assessed by indirect calorimetry with a breath‐by‐breath metabolic cart during an incremental test from rest to the point of exhaustion on a treadmill. Predictions of race finishing times were assessed using both stepwise multiple linear regression as well as ANCOVA with body mass as the covariate. The independent variables included mean power, peak power, minimum power, time to peak power, time to fatigue, body fat percentage, body mass, lean body mass and maximal oxygen consumption (VO 2MAX ). RESULTS During the Wingate test mean power was 531.70±88.92 W, peak power was 854.30±193.97 W, time to peak power was 3.25±2.44 s and rate to fatigue was 18.01±4.93 s. During the incremental treadmill test VO 2MAX_ABS was 4.01±0.65 L·min −1 and VO 2MAX_REL was56.70±6.24 L·min −1 ·kg body mass −1 . The stepwise multiple linear regression indicated that peak power (R 2 =0.59, p<0.05) or residuals from peak power plotted as a function of body mass (R 2 =0.54, p<0.05) were significant predictors of race performance in this mountain marathon. CONCLUSION These preliminary results support that in a mountain ultra‐marathon a significant fraction of the variance in performance is predicted by peak power as determined in a Wingate anaerobic test. Support or Funding Information Supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI)
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".