A Six-Week Trial of Hula Hooping Using a Weighted Hoop
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Novel ideas for core endurance training are continually being created. However, studies of their mechanism of action assist in evaluation of their potential as a training tool, for a variety of people and purposes. The specific purpose of this study was to evaluate a weighted hula hooping training program for its efficacy on improving core muscular endurance and influence on measures of body composition. Eighteen women participated in a weighted hula hooping trial lasting 6 weeks, although only 13 returned for posttrial re-assessment. Hip and waist circumferences, 5 torso muscle endurance tests, and 5 skinfold measurements ("sum of 5") were measured before and after the exercise program. Paired samples t-tests were performed to examine pre/post changes. On average, participants experienced a significant decrease in waist and hip circumference -3.4 cm (p < 0.01) and -1.4 cm (p ≤ 0.05), respectively and waist-to-hip ratio from 89.3 cm down to 87.3 cm (t = 3.312, p < 0.01). There were no significant changes in torso muscular endurance after the 6 weeks of hooping; however, the average "sum of 5" skinfold measurements increased by 10.5 cm (p ≤ 0.05). This study of weighted hula hooping suggested that regular hooping was associated with reduced waist and hip girth together with a redistribution of body mass; however, there were no improvements in torso muscular endurance as measured by isometric testing.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".