MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408957475 · doi:10.1139/apnm-2024-0450

Comparison of maximal glycolytic rate from ergometer to on-water sprinting in elite canoe polo players

2025· article· en· W4408957475 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
B. Meixner, Manuel Matzka, Billy Sperlich

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSprintCycle ergometerBlood lactateAnimal scienceLimits of agreementMathematicsMedicinePhysical therapyInternal medicineHeart rateBiologyBlood pressureNuclear medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a predictor for anerobic performance in many sports, the maximal glycolytic rate (νLamax) is assessed in a laboratory setting. However, differences between lab-based test and a sport specific field setting remain unclear. The aim of this study was to compare ergometer and on-water tests for νLamax in elite youth canoe polo players. Fifteen elite German youth canoe polo players performed a 15 s all-out sprint on a Dansprint ergometer and a 50 m (males) or 40 m (females) all-out sprint on water. Capillary blood samples were taken before and every minute for 8 min after the sprint to determine ΔLa (difference between resting and peak post-exercise blood lactate concentrations). Body composition was assessed using Tanita BC-601 impedance analysis. Power output during the 15 s all-out ergometer sprint showed a high correlation with fat-free mass ( r = 0.82) and total lactate production ( r = 0.86). A multiple regression model incorporating both parameters improved prediction of power output to 89%. Velocity during the 40 and 50 m on-water sprints correlated moderately with νLamax ( r = 0.72) and body-fat percentage ( r = −0.62). A considerable difference in both ΔLa and νLamax was evident between ergometer and on-water sprinting. νLamax is positively correlated with mean velocity and power output during on-water and ergometer sprinting, and that body composition significantly influences the relationship between lactate accumulation and performance output. Additionally, performance metrics and capillary blood lactate measurements cannot be simply transferred between ergometer and on-water tests, indicating that ergometer-derived values do not reliably predict on-water performance. Highlights: Maximal glycolytic rate is not transferable between ergometer and on-water settings in canoe players. Calculated glycolytic contribution is highly correlated to power output on the ergometer. νLamax is moderately correlated to on-water performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physiology Nutrition and MetabolismSame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207