Extremely low volume, whole-body aerobic–resistance training improves aerobic fitness and muscular endurance in females
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study evaluated changes in aerobic fitness and muscular endurance following endurance training and very low volume, whole-body, high-intensity, interval-style aerobic-resistance training. Subjects' enjoyment and implementation intentions were also examined prior to and following training. Subjects (22 recreationally active females (20.3 ± 1.4 years)) completed 4 weeks of exercise training 4 days per week consisting of either 30 min of endurance treadmill training (~85% maximal heart rate; n = 7) or whole-body aerobic-resistance training involving one set of 8 × 20 s of a single exercise (burpees, jumping jacks, mountain climbers, or squat thrusts) separated by 10 s of rest per session (n = 7). A third group was assigned to a nontraining control group (n = 8). Following training, [Formula: see text]O(2peak) was increased in both the endurance (~7%) and interval (~8%) groups (p < 0.05), whereas muscle endurance was improved (p < 0.05) in the interval group (leg extensions, +40%; chest presses, +207%; sit-ups, +64%; push-ups, +135%; and back extensions, +75%). Perceived enjoyment of, and intentions to engage in, very low volume, high-intensity, whole-body interval exercise were both increased following training (p < 0.05). No significant changes were observed for any variable in the control (nontraining) group. These data demonstrate that although improvements in cardiovascular fitness are induced by both endurance and extremely low volume interval-style training, whole-body aerobic-resistance training imparted addition benefit in the form of improved skeletal muscle endurance.
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".