Effects of Age and Counseling on the Cardiorespiratory Response to Graded Exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report on the normative cardiorespiratory response to a graded exercise test in a group of healthy males, 30-69 yr of age (n = 816), and to test the effect of health and fitness counseling on cardiorespiratory fitness in a subset of healthy subjects (n = 87, mean follow-up = 7.3 yr) who returned for at least five subsequent visits. METHODS: As part of a preventive medicine service, each subject performed an incremental exercise test to exhaustion on a treadmill. Peak oxygen consumption, ventilatory threshold, HRmax, and peak oxygen pulse were the primary dependent measures recorded from each test. RESULTS: Both analyses (cross-sectional data followed by longitudinal data) showed a significant decline in peak oxygen consumption with age (0.03 and 0.04 L x min(-1) x yr(-1)), which was related to an age-associated decline in HRmax (0.97 and 0.81 beats per year) and peak oxygen pulse (0.13 and 0.08 mL per beat per year). Ventilatory threshold was also influenced by age, declining in both the cross-sectional (0.02 L x min(-1) x yr(-1)) and the longitudinal (0.03 L x min(-1) x yr(-1)) comparisons. However, when ventilatory threshold and peak oxygen pulse were analyzed for changes between the initial and the follow-up (7.3 yr) visits, no difference was found. It remains unclear if this finding can be attributed to the intervention used. CONCLUSION: Our data support previous investigations on the effects of age on cardiorespiratory fitness. More work is needed to define the potential longitudinal benefits of interventions like those administered in the present study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".