The Effect of Specific Treadmill Protocol on Aerobic Performance Parameters in Flat-Terrain-Trained Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the differences in physiological, metabolic and running dynamics responses between level and inclined treadmill protocols and their implications for accurately determining training intensities. Twenty-three healthy, active adults (18 male and 5 female) from 25 to 59 years old (age: 42.7 years, height: 1.77 m, body mass: 71.9 kg, VO2max: 54.3 mL·kg−1·min−1) completed both protocols. Physiological markers (gas exchange threshold (GET), respiratory compensation point (RCP), VO2max), metabolic variables (HR, VO2, VCO2, RER, VE, speed) and running dynamic variables (running economy (RE), stride length (SL), ground contact time (GCT), cadence) were measured and matched for the external work rate at each stage. The data were analyzed using one-way repeated measures ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc procedure. No significant differences were observed in the physiological markers for the inclined and flat protocols across all the intensities. However, the metabolic variables showed significant differences (p = 0.0333 to <0.0001) between the inclined and flat protocols at higher intensities. The RE was consistently improved in the flat protocol compared with the inclined protocol, with significant differences observed at the high-intensity stages (p = 0.0232 to <0.0001). While the physiological markers remained unaffected, metabolic responses and running kinematics differed significantly between the protocols. These results highlight that training intensity zones derived from inclined protocols may not be appropriate for flat terrain training, underlining the importance of testing specificity in athlete preparation.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".