Four weeks of running sprint interval training improves cardiorespiratory fitness in young and middle-aged adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a 4-week running sprint interval training protocol to improve both aerobic and anaerobic fitness in middle-aged adults (40-50 years) as well as compare the adaptations to younger adults (20-30 years). Twenty-eight inactive participants - 14 young 20-30-year-olds (n = 7 males) and 14 middle-aged 40-50-year-olds (n = 5 males) - completed 4 weeks of running sprint interval training (4 to 6, 30-s "all-out" sprints on a curved, self-propelled treadmill separated by 4 min active recovery performed 3 times per week). Before and after training, all participants were assessed for maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max), 2000 m time trial performance, and anaerobic performance on a single 30-s sprint. There were no interactions between group and time for any tested variable, although training improved relative VO2max (young = 3.9, middle-aged = 5.2%; P < 0.04), time trial performance (young = 5.9, middle-aged = 8.2%; P < 0.001), peak sprint speed (young = 9.3, middle-aged = 2.2%; P < 0.001), and average sprint speed (young = 6.8, middle-aged = 11.6%; P < 0.001) in both young and middle-aged groups from pre- to post-training on the 30-s sprint test. The current study demonstrates that a 4-week running sprint interval training programme is equally effective at improving aerobic and anaerobic fitness in younger and middle-aged adults.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".