Energy expenditure during the group exercise course Bodypump in young healthy individuals.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The purpose of the present study was to examine the energy expenditure during the group resistance training exercise course Bodypump in young healthy individuals. METHODS: The study population consisted of 40 men and women (age: 31.7±5.8 years, body mass index [BMI]: 24±2.6 kg/m2) that performed three 60-min sessions of the group resistance training exercise course Bodypump. Free living energy expenditure during the course was measured using the portable SenseWear armband. Perceived energy expenditure, perception of effort, fatigue and pleasure were also measured after the course. RESULTS: Mean energy expenditure and intensity during the Bodypump course for all participants were 250.3±67.8 kcal or 4.2 kcal/min and 3.5±0.7 METS, respectively. Interestingly, perceived energy expenditure for all participants was significantly higher by ~67% compared to measured energy expenditure (394.1±116 vs. 250.3±67.8 kcal, respectively; P<0.05). Moreover, 85% of all individuals reported that the Bodypump course was highly enjoyable. CONCLUSION: Energy expenditure during a 60-min Bodypump course appears to be approximately 250 kcal and seems to be performed at a moderate intensity (3.5 METS) in young healthy men and women. These results could have an impact on the amount of physical activity an individual performs as well as the preparation of physical activity programs by kinesiologists.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".