Time Spent Near Maximal Oxygen Uptake During Exercise at Different Regions of the Severe-Intensity Domain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Faricier, R, Fleitas-Paniagua, PR, Iannetta, D, Millet, GY, Keir, DA, and Murias, JM. Time spent near maximal oxygen uptake during exercise at different regions of the severe-intensity domain. J Strength Cond Res 39(2): e106-e114, 2025-This study applied the critical power (CP) model and several bouts of constant-power exercise within different regions of the severe-intensity domain to determine whether there exists an optimal intensity to maximize time spent near V̇ o2 peak. Subjects visited the laboratory 9 times. After a ramp-incremental test to determine V̇ o2 peak and peak power output (PO peak ), 9 active individuals (5 females) performed 4 constant-power bouts to task failure between 65 and 100%PO peak to estimate CP and total finite work above CP (W'). Subjects then completed 4 additional exhaustive trials predicted to result in task failure in ∼3, 6, 9, and 12 minutes. Time spent at V̇ o2 peak was calculated as the duration at which V̇ o2 ≥ 95% of the trial-specific V̇ o2 peak. The level of significance set for the study was p < 0.05. Mean CP and W' were 201 ± 48 W and 17.6 ± 8.4 kJ, respectively. For each bout, time to task failure was 2.7 ± 0.5, 6.3 ± 0.6, 9.5 ± 1.2, and 13.1 ± 3.1 minutes for the 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-minute conditions. Time spent at V̇ o2 peak during the 3-minute trial (45 ± 22 seconds) was shorter than during the 9-minute (204 ± 104 seconds; p = 0.002) and 12-minute trials (260 ± 155 seconds; p < 0.001). The 6-minute trial (117 ± 46 seconds) had shorter ( p = 0.005) time spent at V̇ o2 peak compared with the 12-minute trial. At least when performing single bouts of exercise, intensities closer to CP (i.e., those sustainable for ∼9 minutes or longer) seem preferable compared with POs in the upper regions of the severe-intensity domain to maximize time at V̇ o2 peak.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".