Physiological and Biomechanical Responses Induced by a Continuous Test and an Intermittent Test in Middle-Distance Runners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to examine middle-distance runners' acute physiological and biomechanical responses to 2 maximal aerobic speed tests: an intermittent test (5 × 1 mintest) and a continuous test (University of Montreal Track Test [UM-TT]). METHODS: Twenty trained male middle-distance runners completed the UM-TT and 5 × 1 mintest on separate days. The rating of perceived exertion, peak heart rate, and maximal aerobic speed of both tests (VUM-TT and V5 ×1m) were analyzed. Heart-rate variability (time and frequency domain) and spatiotemporal parameters were measured preexercise and postexercise at 5, 30, and 60 minutes. RESULTS: No differences were found between VUM-TT and V5×1m (18.4 [1.0] vs 18.5 [0.9] km·h-1, r = .88, P = .14). Peak heart rate was similar between tests (UM-TT: 188.6 [4] beats·min-1 vs 5 × 1 mintest: 189 [2] beats·min-1, r = .63, P = .23). Rating of perceived exertion was higher in UM-TT (UM-TT: 8.1 [0.5] vs 5 × 1 mintest: 7.6 [0.7], r = .47, P = .009). For both tests, heart-rate-variability parameters indicated higher sympathetic/lower parasympathetic activity compared with baseline at all time points (P < .001), without differences between tests. Stride frequency and duty factor increased postexercise (P < .05), with no changes in contact time and stride time (P > .05), without differences between the 2 tests. CONCLUSIONS: Both tests significantly changed heart-rate variability and biomechanical parameters, with no differences between the tests. As 5 × 1 mintest was perceived as less demanding, it may be a less taxing alternative for assessing maximal aerobic speed in middle-distance runners.
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) | 0.002 | 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".