由生成式人工智能开发的肌肉肥大和最大力量训练计划的专业评估。

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 SPORT SCIENCES
Biology of Sport Pub Date : 2025-08-26 eCollection Date: 2025-10-01 DOI:10.5114/biolsport.2026.152350
Tim Havers, Caroline Jelonnek, Lukas Masur, Eduard Isenmann, Billy Sperlich, Stephan Geisler, Peter Düking
{"title":"由生成式人工智能开发的肌肉肥大和最大力量训练计划的专业评估。","authors":"Tim Havers, Caroline Jelonnek, Lukas Masur, Eduard Isenmann, Billy Sperlich, Stephan Geisler, Peter Düking","doi":"10.5114/biolsport.2026.152350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of resistance training plans for muscle hypertrophy and maximal strength generated by three large language models (LLMs): GPT-3.5 (via ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot) and Google Gemini (GG). A total of 10 experienced coaches, each with at least a bachelor's degree in exercise science and at least 2 years of coaching experience, rated these plans on a 1-5 Likert scale based on 27 criteria essential for effective training plan design. The LLMs were accessed on April 30, 2024, with a prompt structure that included key training objectives and the training history of a fictional advanced trainee. Results showed that the overall quality of the LLM-generated training plans was moderate. GG outperformed GPT-3.5 (via ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot) for hypertrophy-related plans on 2 out of 27 criteria (advanced exercise methods, recovery strategies; p < 0.05), while GPT-3.5 (via Microsoft Copilot) outperformed GG for strength-related plans on 1 out of 27 criteria (testing procedure; p < 0.05). Across all criteria, GG received ratings > 3 more frequently than GPT-3.5 (via ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot), particularly for general aspects, training principles, and training methods. Differences between hypertrophy- and strength-oriented plans within each LLM were minimal, although GPT-3.5 (via ChatGPT) showed the most inconsistency in ratings. Although LLM-generated plans can serve as an initial framework for hypertrophy and strength development, expert supervision remains crucial to refine these plans, as LLMs cannot account for individual responses to training, safety considerations, and the complex physiological adaptation processes observed by experienced coaches.</p>","PeriodicalId":55365,"journal":{"name":"Biology of Sport","volume":"42 4","pages":"353-366"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12492345/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A professional assessment of training plans for muscle hypertrophy and maximal strength developed by generative artificial intelligence.\",\"authors\":\"Tim Havers, Caroline Jelonnek, Lukas Masur, Eduard Isenmann, Billy Sperlich, Stephan Geisler, Peter Düking\",\"doi\":\"10.5114/biolsport.2026.152350\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of resistance training plans for muscle hypertrophy and maximal strength generated by three large language models (LLMs): GPT-3.5 (via ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot) and Google Gemini (GG). A total of 10 experienced coaches, each with at least a bachelor's degree in exercise science and at least 2 years of coaching experience, rated these plans on a 1-5 Likert scale based on 27 criteria essential for effective training plan design. The LLMs were accessed on April 30, 2024, with a prompt structure that included key training objectives and the training history of a fictional advanced trainee. Results showed that the overall quality of the LLM-generated training plans was moderate. GG outperformed GPT-3.5 (via ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot) for hypertrophy-related plans on 2 out of 27 criteria (advanced exercise methods, recovery strategies; p < 0.05), while GPT-3.5 (via Microsoft Copilot) outperformed GG for strength-related plans on 1 out of 27 criteria (testing procedure; p < 0.05). Across all criteria, GG received ratings > 3 more frequently than GPT-3.5 (via ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot), particularly for general aspects, training principles, and training methods. Differences between hypertrophy- and strength-oriented plans within each LLM were minimal, although GPT-3.5 (via ChatGPT) showed the most inconsistency in ratings. Although LLM-generated plans can serve as an initial framework for hypertrophy and strength development, expert supervision remains crucial to refine these plans, as LLMs cannot account for individual responses to training, safety considerations, and the complex physiological adaptation processes observed by experienced coaches.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55365,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biology of Sport\",\"volume\":\"42 4\",\"pages\":\"353-366\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12492345/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biology of Sport\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2026.152350\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/10/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SPORT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biology of Sport","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2026.152350","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的目的是评估由三个大型语言模型(LLMs): GPT-3.5(通过ChatGPT和Microsoft Copilot)和谷歌Gemini (GG)生成的肌肉肥大和最大力量阻力训练计划的质量。共有10名经验丰富的教练,每位教练至少拥有运动科学学士学位和至少2年的教练经验,根据27项有效训练计划设计所必需的标准,以1-5的李克特量表对这些计划进行评分。法学硕士课程于2024年4月30日进入,其提示结构包括关键培训目标和虚构的高级学员的培训历史。结果表明,llm生成的培训计划的整体质量是中等的。在27项标准(高级运动方法、恢复策略,p < 0.05)中,GG在2项肥厚相关计划上优于GPT-3.5(通过ChatGPT和Microsoft Copilot),而GPT-3.5(通过Microsoft Copilot)在27项标准中,在1项力量相关计划上优于GG(测试程序,p < 0.05)。在所有标准中,GG获得bbbb30评级的频率高于GPT-3.5(通过ChatGPT和Microsoft Copilot),特别是在一般方面,培训原则和培训方法。尽管GPT-3.5(通过ChatGPT)在评分上显示出最大的不一致性,但每个LLM中肥厚和力量导向计划之间的差异很小。虽然llm生成的计划可以作为肥大和力量发展的初始框架,但专家监督对于完善这些计划仍然至关重要,因为llm不能解释个人对训练的反应、安全考虑以及经验丰富的教练观察到的复杂生理适应过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A professional assessment of training plans for muscle hypertrophy and maximal strength developed by generative artificial intelligence.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of resistance training plans for muscle hypertrophy and maximal strength generated by three large language models (LLMs): GPT-3.5 (via ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot) and Google Gemini (GG). A total of 10 experienced coaches, each with at least a bachelor's degree in exercise science and at least 2 years of coaching experience, rated these plans on a 1-5 Likert scale based on 27 criteria essential for effective training plan design. The LLMs were accessed on April 30, 2024, with a prompt structure that included key training objectives and the training history of a fictional advanced trainee. Results showed that the overall quality of the LLM-generated training plans was moderate. GG outperformed GPT-3.5 (via ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot) for hypertrophy-related plans on 2 out of 27 criteria (advanced exercise methods, recovery strategies; p < 0.05), while GPT-3.5 (via Microsoft Copilot) outperformed GG for strength-related plans on 1 out of 27 criteria (testing procedure; p < 0.05). Across all criteria, GG received ratings > 3 more frequently than GPT-3.5 (via ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot), particularly for general aspects, training principles, and training methods. Differences between hypertrophy- and strength-oriented plans within each LLM were minimal, although GPT-3.5 (via ChatGPT) showed the most inconsistency in ratings. Although LLM-generated plans can serve as an initial framework for hypertrophy and strength development, expert supervision remains crucial to refine these plans, as LLMs cannot account for individual responses to training, safety considerations, and the complex physiological adaptation processes observed by experienced coaches.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Biology of Sport
Biology of Sport 生物-运动科学
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
12.50%
发文量
113
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Biology of Sport is the official journal of the Institute of Sport in Warsaw, Poland, published since 1984. Biology of Sport is an international scientific peer-reviewed journal, published quarterly in both paper and electronic format. The journal publishes articles concerning basic and applied sciences in sport: sports and exercise physiology, sports immunology and medicine, sports genetics, training and testing, pharmacology, as well as in other biological aspects related to sport. Priority is given to inter-disciplinary papers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信