## 3 Results  
### Occurrence of VO2 pl in the Whole Group (\(n\) = 42)  
All subjects completed the test. The results are presented in Table 2.  
A VO2 pl was observed in twenty-two subjects (52%) (Figure 7, example of a VO2 pl), while the remaining twenty subjects achieved a VO2 peak and met the secondary VO2 max criterion. It should be noted that the RPE did not reach maximal values corresponding to very hard (17/20), since the average value for the whole group was only 16.8 \(\pm\) 1.5 (Table 2). On the other hand, there was no difference between the NONPLAT and PLAT groups or NONEND and END groups (Table 3). Figure 7: Linear regression of various physiological parameters by time for the subject 940 reaching a VO\({}_{2}\)pl. Subfigures include VO\({}_{2}\), theta power, alpha power, beta power, alpha/beta power ratio, alpha/VO\({}_{2}\) as a percentage of starting alpha/VO\({}_{2}\) power, beta/VO\({}_{2}\) as a percentage of starting beta/VO\({}_{2}\) power, and theta/VO\({}_{2}\) power as a percentage of starting theta/VO\({}_{2}\) power. PSD: power spectral density. Difference in Physiological and Training Parameters between the NONPLAT and PLAT Groups or NONEND and END Ones  
Table 3 reports the non-significant values of VO2 max, training volume, height, final RPE, and fractional use of VO2 max at the RCP. The only significant difference between plateau or endurance practice criteria was that the endurance group had a higher VO2 max (\(p\) = 0.0002) and was older (\(p\) = 0.03). Training volume did not differ significantly between the groups. EEG Responses vs. VO2 Increase, between the NONPLAT and PLAT Groups or NONEND and END Ones during the IET  
In all subjects, we observed a decrease in the \(\alpha/\beta\) ratio and an increase in theta and beta (presented as percentage of the start value in Table 4). Figure 7 (and Table 5) shows an example of the EEG response during the IET in one subject (id 940) who was in the PLAT and NONEND groups. These EEG responses were the same for all subjects, with the exception of the alpha response, which exhibited some variability. Specifically, it increased in 27 of 42 subjects and decreased in the remaining 15. However, the frequency distribution of the alpha value tendency did not differ significantly from the expected frequencies (Table 6). Nevertheless, although not significant, given the alpha threshold of 5% against which we compare \(p\) values (\(p\) = 0.07), fewer END subjects show a decrease in alpha power compared to the NONEND group. However, when we focused on the ratio of alpha power expressed as a percentage of the starting value to VO2 as a percentage of the starting value, it decreases in all subjects, indicating a \"depletion\" of alpha power compared to the metabolic demand, as was observed in all subjects for the other EEG power bands. In addition, there was also no impact of the distribution of these different tendencies between groups for NONPLAT and PLAT subjects (Table 7) and the increase or decrease tendency of cadence, EEG \(\theta/\)VO2, EEG \(\alpha/\)VO2, EEG \(\beta/\)VO2, and \(\alpha/\beta\) ratio (Table 8). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & **Alpha/Beta** & **Theta Increase** & **Beta Increase** \\  & & **Ratio** & **(\%start)** & **(\%start)** \\ \hline NONEND & \(n\) = 22 & \(-\)20.30 \(\pm\) 12.93 & 20.39 \(\pm\) 16.43 & 40.06 \(\pm\) 19.97 \\ END & \(n\) = 20 & \(-\)15.74 \(\pm\) 11.93 & 20.24 \(\pm\) 16.43 & 47.00 \(\pm\) 16.14 \\ F value & & 1.36 & 0.01 & 1.33 \\ \(p\) value & & 0.250 & 0.907 & 0.256 \\ \hline NONPLAT & \(n\) = 20 & \(-\)18.58 \(\pm\) 12.71 & 18.29 \(\pm\) 13.31 & 44.26 \(\pm\) 18.59 \\ PLAT & \(n\) = 22 & \(-\)17.93 \(\pm\) 12.67 & 22.25 \(\pm\) 18.65 & 42.34 \(\pm\) 18.93 \\ F value & & \(<\)0.001 & 0.74 & 0.08 \\ \(p\) value & & 0.988 & 0.395 & 0.778 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Effects of NONPLAT or PLAT and NONEND or END groups on EEG variables. Theta and beta values are expressed as a percentage of the starting value of the IET.