VO2 and velocity in rct during continuous incremental treadmill test of uphill and dowhill
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The etiology of the drift in VO2 in the respiratory compensatory threshold (RCT) during downhill running is unclear. It was investigated the velocities (VRCT) and VO2 in RCT (RCTVO2) in three different inclinations in the continuous incremental treadmill test (Tt). Eight sedentary women volunteered (24±2 years old) to undergo 10% downhill (DT), 10% uphill (UT) and near-level (NL) in Tt to exhaustion to determine the RCTVO2 and VRCT and peak VO2 on different days and were randomly allocated. VCO2 was examined as function of VE under the assumption that the RCT corresponds to the break point in the VE-VCO2 relationship. Peak VO2 was taken as the average of the highest five consecutive breaths attained in the individual work rates for the steps test in three different inclinations. It was used one-way ANOVA (Tukey’s post hoc test) to compare the differences. Statistical significance was set at P≤ 0.05. Peak VO2 was 34.62±4.20 mL.kg.min-1, 33.14±3.60 mL.kg.min-1 and 32.74±2.66 mL.kg.min-1 for NL, UT and DT respectively (P>0.05). RCTVO2 was NL = 29.14±7.95 mL.kg.min-1, UT = 30.10±4.53 mL.kg.min-1 and DT = 29.70±3.00 mL.kg.min-1 (P>0.05). VRCT was 10.38±1.92 km/h, 8.25±0.89 km/h and 12.88±1.46 km/h for NL, UT and DT respectively (P<0.01). Tukey’s post hoc test find the following differences between NL vs UT (P<0.05), NL vs DT (P<0.05) and UT vs DT (P<0.01). The drift in VO2 in the respiratory compensatory threshold during the three bouts appears unrelated biomechanical factors possibly due to a decoupling of neuromuscular and metabolic responses under the status of training.
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".