MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7004886381

Performance and acute recovery in endurance runners Rendimiento y recuperación aguda en corredores de resistencia

2010· article· en· W7004886381 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart rateBlood lactateAerobic exerciseSignificant differenceRecovery rateEndurance training
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sixteen well-trained endurance runners were evaluated in two different days with the Université de Montréal Track Test (UMTT), and the time limit at maximum aerobic speed test (Tlim). Heart rate and lactate drops were examined during the acute recovery (by walking). Maximum heart rate was higher in UMTT compared with Tlim (p = 0,001). Heart rate recovery in the first minute after both protocols correlated with maximal aerobic speed (r = 0,611 and r = 0,615, p = 0,012, for UMTT and Tlim, respectively); with a correlation detected between HR recovery drops after both protocols (r = 0,824; p = 0,000). The difference between lactate levels at first and 10th min of recovery, was significantly different only in UMTT condition (p = 0,013). In summary: 1) it was found a moderate relationship between maximum aerobic speed and heart rate recovery in distance runners; 2) maximum heart rate is higher in an incremental test compared with a rectangular test in the field; 3) the significant lactate drop at 10 min of recovery only after UMTT, suggest the running protocol dependence of this parameter. Key Words:heart rate, lactate, recovery, maximum aerobic speed Dieciséis corredores de fondo bien entrenados fueron evaluados en dos días diferentes mediante la prueba de carrera en pista de la Universidad de Montreal (UMTT) y el tiempo límite a la velocidad aeróbica máxima (Tlim). Se examinó la respuesta de la frecuencia cardiaca y la lactatemia en la recuperación aguda (andando). La frecuencia cardiaca máxima fue diferente entre los dos días de valoración (p = 0,001), resultando superior en el UMTT respecto del Tlim. La recuperación de la frecuencia cardiaca en el primer minuto (RFC1) correlacionó con la velocidad aeróbica máxima (r = 0,611 y r = 0,615, p = 0,012; en el UMTT y el Tlim, respectivamente), correlacionando además los dos valores de RFC1 entre sí (r = 0,824; p = 0,000). La diferencia en la lactatemia entre la finalización y el minuto diez de la recuperación fue estadísticamente significativa sólo después del UMTT (p = 0,013). Se concluye que: 1) fue hallada una relación moderada entre la recuperación cardiaca y la velocidad aeróbica máxima en corredores de resistencia; 2) la frecuencia cardiaca máxima obtenida en una prueba incremental en el campo es superior a la alcanzada en una prueba de tipo rectangular; 3) el descenso significativo de la lactatemia a los 10 min sólo se observó después del UMTT, lo que sugiere una influencia del protocolo de carrera en este parámetro. Palabras Clave: frecuencia cardiaca, lactato, recuperación, velocidad aeróbica máxima

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.426 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicCell Image Analysis Techniques→French-language works237,207→