What’s Under the Hood? Insight into the Cardiac Function and VO2 Max of an Elite University Distance Runner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Canadian university endurance athletes compete across an extended competitive calendar, requiring them to achieve and maintain high levels of physiological readiness at multiple points throughout the academic year. Purpose: This case study examined seasonal variation in cardiac function and cardiorespiratory performance in an elite female distance runner who competed in both the cross‑country (XC) and indoor track and field (TF) seasons. Methods: Assessments were conducted following each championship period to evaluate peak and submaximal physiological responses using standardized cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Results: Peak cardiorespiratory performance, including VO2Max (mL·kg-1·min-1) and velocity at VO2Max, remained consistent across seasons (XC = 65.9 ‘vs’ TF = 63.8, p = 0.23). Peak stroke volume (mL/beat) was meaningfully higher (MDC95) during TF (TF = 168.0 ‘vs’ XC = 157.8). Max HR (bpm) was significantly reduced during TF (XC = 186 ± 5 ‘vs’ TF =183 ± 3, p < 0.05). Running speed (mph) at ventilatory threshold -2 increased during TF (XC = 9.0 ‘vs’ TF = 9.5). Conclusion: Peak cardiorespiratory performance remained stable across the XC and TF seasons, while running economy and submaximal cardiac function varied considerably. These changes likely reflect seasonal shifts in training volume and intensity tailored to different race demands.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".