Peak Cardiorespiratory Performance can be Achieved during a Maximal 60-sec Effort as Compared to Traditional Exercise Tests in Healthy Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study compared peak cardiorespiratory performance when performing either a 1-min or 3-min stage graded maximal exercise test (GXT) to a 60-sec Wingate test (WGT). Materials and Methods: healthy college students were randomly assigned to perform either a 1-min stage or a 3-min stage GXT before completing a 60-sec WGT within 21-days. Results: Differences (%) in VO2 peak (Lmin-1) were insignificant between the WGT and both the 1-min protocol (-0.61%, ES = -0.03, p = 0.80) and the 3-min protocol (0.85%, ES = 0.04, p = 0.65). Bland–Altman analysis revealed a mean bias (SD) in VO2 peak of -0.02 0.25 between the 1-min GXT and WGT, and a mean bias of 0.03 0.20 between the 3-min GXT and WGT. There were no significant differences in minute ventilation (Lmin-1) between the WGT and both the 1-min (-2.10%, p = 0.73) and 3-min protocols (-7.91%, p = 0.10). A similar O2 pulse (mL·beat) was observed between the WGT and both the 1-min protocol (-1.73%, p = 0.44), and 3-min protocol (0.00%, p = 0.97). Max heart rate (bpm) was comparable between the WGT and both the 1-min (1.00%, p = 0.52) and 3-min protocol (1.01%, p = 0.53). A significant reduction in the respiratory exchange ratio was observed in both the 1-min (-11.00%, p = 0.008) and 3-min (-22.70%, p = 0.0002) protocol compared to the WGT. Conclusion: This study suggests peak cardiorespiratory performance can be achieved using a brief, 60-sec maximal effort, as compared to traditional graded exercise tests in health individuals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".