904 EP049 – Prevention of injury and illness in an elite-level sprint kayaker: a case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Athletes are increasingly continuing to train and/or compete during pregnancy; routinely exceeding global physical activity recommendations (≥2.5 hours moderate intensity/week) and potentially increasing risk of injury and illness for mother and child. Objective Examine training and physiological characteristics of Olympic sprint kayaker who continued to train during pregnancy and their impact on injury and illness. Design & Methodology A retrospective longitudinal observational case study (N=1). Training data from pre-conception to birth was collected in the Training Peaks platform, physiological data was collected in a lab and injury and illness data recorded via an app. Data of interest included session frequency, volume, modality, time spent in each training zone (based on a five-zone intensity scale specific to our athlete’s maximum heart rate (HRmax)), training modifications, injury and illness events. Results Throughout pregnancy, our athlete substantially exceeded recommendations engaging in 444 training sessions totaling 440 hours (average 11.38 sessions totaling 11.26 hours/week). Most training was spent in active recovery (∑318 hours at ≤77% HRmax [≤139 bpm]), whilst 17 hours were accumulated training at ≥87% HRmax (≥156bpm) including 2.38 hours at threshold (≥92% HRmax [≥166 bpm]). Most sessions consisted of strength (∑165 sessions;166.80 hours) and kayak-based (∑159 sessions;172.22 hours) training, and an increase in strength over pre-conception levels was also observed. Training modifications were introduced throughout the pregnancy to protect against injury and illness, resulting in a reduction in overall training volume as pregnancy progressed. However, a lower heart rate, lactate and VO2 for a given workload as pregnancy progressed suggests an overall improvement in fitness. Our athlete maintained a healthy pregnancy and delivery with only minor injury and illness events recorded. Conclusions Evidence-informed guidance was lacking to appropriately support injury and illness considerations. Despite this, our athlete maintained a high volume of training throughout pregnancy without major injury or illness.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".