Validation of Exercise Target Heart Rate Zones for Overweight and Obese Pregnant Women.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Percent heart rate reserve (%HRReserve) is commonly used for exercise prescription. It was originally thought to be highly correlated to percent oxygen uptake reserve (VO2Reserve), however, this may not be applicable to certain populations. PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to 1) determine if the relationship between HRReserve is best described by peak oxygen consumption (VO2Peak) or oxygen consumption reserve (VO2Reserve) in sedentary overweight and obese pregnant women; and 2) develop and validate target heart rate (THR) zones for mild exercise based on age in this group. METHODS: One hundred six women between 16 and 20 weeks of gestation with medical clearance performed a progressive treadmill test to volitional fatigue. Heart rate and VO2 were measured at rest and during the peak exercise test. Data from every fourth subject was used for cross-validation. Two linear regression equations were performed for each subject then pooled to obtain mean group values (+SD): %HRReserve vs. %VO2Peak and %HRReserve vs. %VO2Reserve. THR zones equivalent to 20-39% VO2Reserve were developed for this population. RESULTS: The results indicated that %HRReserve was better described by %VO2Reserve (Y=1.046x −7.561; R2=0.741) than %VO2Peak (Y=1.259x −28.795; R2=0.604). Validated target heart rate ranges for sedentary overweight and obese pregnant women are 104-124 bpm (20-29 years of age) and 102-121 bpm (30-39 years of age). This is equivalent to an exercise intensity of 20-39% HRReserve as recommended by the American College of Sports Medicine for previously sedentary pregnant women. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that overweight and obese women who are medically prescreened can exercise during pregnancy within our validated target heart rate zones. Support by Canadian Institute of Health Research-IAPH.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".