Comparison of VO2 peak during treadmill and cycle ergometry in severely overweight youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare peak cardiorespiratory parameters during treadmill and cycle ergometry in severely overweight youth. Twenty-one participants from the Committed to Kids Pediatric Weight Management program at the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center volunteered. Participants completed peak treadmill and cycle ergometer tests on separate days. In order to examine reliability, six subjects completed a second treadmill test and seven subjects a second cycle test. Physical characteristics included the following: Age (yrs) 12.5 ± 2.8; Body weight (BW) (kg) 78.5 ± 27.0, Height (m) 1.56 ± 0.13; and % fat 42.8 ± 7.5. No statistical significant differences (p ? 0.05) were found between treadmill and cycle peak tests. Treadmill VO2 peak (l·min-1) averaged 1.57 ± 0.40 and cycle 1.46 ± 0.30 and VO2 peak relative to BW 21.5 ± 4.1 and 20.3 ± 5.5 for treadmill and cycle ergometry, respectively. Therefore treadmill values were 7.0% and 5.6% higher than cycle values. In normal weight or children and adolescents at risk for overweight, treadmill values typically average from 7 to 12% higher than cycle values. Reliability of VO2 peak as indicated by intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.70 to 0.96 for a single or repeated tests. Intra individual variability averaged 0.5% for VO2 peak (l·min-1) during treadmill ergometry and 5.7% for cycle ergometry. Also, standard errors of measurement were low (40 to 90 ml min or 1.0 to 1.7 ml.kg-1. min-1) for the peak treadmill or cycle tests. In summary, our data suggest that both treadmill and cycle ergometry provide reliable methods for determining VO2 peak in overweight youth.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".