Comparison of the lactate and ventilatory thresholds during prolonged work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this investigation was to compare the ventilatory threshold (T(vent)) with the lactate threshold (T(lact)) during 60 minutes of steady-state exercise at the calculated thresholds. Eight trained, male cyclists (mean age=23.3 yrs, ht=176.4 cm, wt=70.7 kg, VO₂max=61.02 ml/kg‧minˉ¹) performed a 23 W/min progressive intensity cycling test for determination of T(lact) and T(vent). T(vent) was determined by the non-linear increase in excess CO₂ (ExCO₂) while T(lact) was calculated by the 'individual anaerobic threshold' (IAT) method. Subsequently, subjects performed up to 60 minutes steady-state exercise at the threshold workloads. Results at T(vent) and T(lact) indicate significant differences (p<0.01; T(lact)>T(vent)) between VO₂, ExCO₂, HR, [BLa] and workload as calculated by Hotelling's T²-test. During the steady state exercise at each specified workload, VO₂, [BLa], heart rate and ExCO₂ were measured at 15 minute intervals. All subjects completed the steady-state exercise at T(vent) (VSS) while only 2 subjects completed the steady-state exercise at T(lact) (LSS) (avg time=48.4 min). Comparison of metabolic variables using MANOVA and multiple comparisons revealed significant differences between VSS and LSS for HR and VO₂ at all time intervals, for [BLa] at 30 and 45 minute intervals and for ExCO₂ at the 30 minute interval. Furthermore, examination of [BLa] over time using trend analysis revealed a stabilization during VSS ([formula omitted]=3.05 mmol‧Lˉ¹) whereas [BLa] continuously increased over time during LSS. Findings indicate that T(lact) (IAT method) overestimates the ability to perform prolonged work over 45 min. while T(vent) (ExCO) allows for steady-state exercise greater than 60 minutes.
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) | 0.001 | 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".