↓ Skip to main content

Planning a sports training program using Adaptive Particle Swarm Optimization with emphasis on physiological constraints

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Planning a sports training program using Adaptive Particle Swarm Optimization with emphasis on physiological constraints
Published in
BMC Research Notes, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13104-017-3120-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nattapon Kumyaito, Preecha Yupapin, Kreangsak Tamee

Abstract

An effective training plan is an important factor in sports training to enhance athletic performance. A poorly considered training plan may result in injury to the athlete, and overtraining. Good training plans normally require expert input, which may have a cost too great for many athletes, particularly amateur athletes. The objectives of this research were to create a practical cycling training plan that substantially improves athletic performance while satisfying essential physiological constraints. Adaptive Particle Swarm Optimization using ɛ-constraint methods were used to formulate such a plan and simulate the likely performance outcomes. The physiological constraints considered in this study were monotony, chronic training load ramp rate and daily training impulse. A comparison of results from our simulations against a training plan from British Cycling, which we used as our standard, showed that our training plan outperformed the benchmark in terms of both athletic performance and satisfying all physiological constraints.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Lecturer 4 6%
Professor 4 6%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 26 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 15 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 8%
Computer Science 5 8%
Engineering 4 6%
Physics and Astronomy 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 27 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 August 2023.
All research outputs
#14,141,990
of 24,180,797 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,717
of 4,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,643
of 450,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#64
of 179 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,180,797 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,361 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 450,284 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 179 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.