Blood Volume Expansion and Cardiorespiratory Function: Effects of Training Modality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of different modalities of aerobic (i.e., interval (INT) and continuous (CONT)) training on cardiorespiratory function and the importance of training-induced blood volume (BV) expansion on aerobic power and LV function. We hypothesized that if modality-mediated differences in cardiorespiratory function exist after INT and CONT, they would be related directly to differences in training-induced hypervolemia. METHODS: We examined the effects of 12 wk of CONT and INT on BV, volume-regulatory hormones (angiotensin II, aldosterone, atrial natriuretic peptide), and cardiorespiratory function in 20 untrained males (mean age 30 +/- 4 (SD)). Participants were stratified (mass and VO2max) and randomly assigned to control, CONT, or INT. RESULTS: There were no significant changes in cardiorespiratory function or BV in the control group. Twelve weeks of continuous and interval training, respectively, resulted in significant changes in VO2max (23 +/- 18 vs 21 +/- 10%), peak stroke volume (20 +/- 18 vs 11 +/- 18%), and BV (12 +/- 9 vs 10 +/- 6%). Changes in VO2max were directly related to changes in BV (r = 0.47). Angiotensin II significantly increased after 1 wk of CONT and INT and thereafter returned to baseline values. There was no significant difference between the CONT and INT groups with regard to changes in vascular volumes, volume-regulatory hormones, and/or cardiorespiratory function. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that: 1) 12 wk of CONT and INT result in similar improvements in VO2max, and LV function and 2) training-induced hypervolemia accounts for approximately 47% of the changes in VO2max after CONT and INT.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".