EFFECTS OF UPPER BODY TRAINING IN HEALTHY TRANSPLANT PATIENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organ transplant patients commonly exhibit reduced exercise tolerance and aerobic fitness compared to sedentary controls, which may not be normalized with exercise training. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of 10 wks of upper body training on aerobic and anaerobic fitness of the upper and lower limbs in transplant patients and age- and weight-matched sedentary controls. METHODS: Transplant patients (T, n = 19) and controls (C, n = 7) were examined before and after 10 wks (2 d/wk) of Dragon boat training. Measures of aerobic (VO2max) and anaerobic (30-s Wingate) fitness of the upper and lower extremities were taken on two test days pre- and two test days post-training. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in peak anaerobic power of the legs or arms between T and C at baseline. Anaerobic power of the legs did not significantly change in either group after training. Anaerobic power of the arms was significantly increased in T (4.1 ± 0.2 (SE) vs. 4.4 ± 0.2 W/kg, respectively), but unchanged in C after training. VO2max of both the arms and legs were not significantly different between T and C at baseline. In T and C training resulted in significant improvements in VO2max of both arms (18.9 ± 1.3 vs. 21.1 ± 1.2 mL/kg/min and 21.0 ± 1.9 vs. 26.3 ± 1.3 mL/kg/min, respectively) and legs (24.7 ± 2.0 vs. 26.6 ± 1.9 mL/kg/min and 29.2 ± 1.9 vs. 34.4 ± 3.8 mL/kg/min, respectively). The magnitude of improvement in VO2max of both limbs was significantly greater in C. Maximal heart rate was lower in T vs. C before training during both arm (147 ± 5 vs. 165 ± 6 bpm, respectively) and leg (146 ± 5 vs. 163 ± 7 bpm, respectively) exercise. There was no significant change in maximal heart rate in either group after training. CONCLUSIONS: Both T and C experienced significant improvements in aerobic fitness after 10 weeks of Dragon boat training. The training-induced improvement in VO2max of the trained limbs as well as the non-trained limbs (i.e., legs) is indicative of a key central adaptation in both T and C. Transplant patients, however, did not achieve the same degree of improvement in aerobic fitness after 10 wks of training compared to C, but were able to increase their anaerobic capacity to a greater extent than C. These findings may indicate a greater reliance on anaerobic energy systems during exercise in T. Funded by B.C. Lung Assoc., Fujisawa Canada Inc., Novartis, Roche Pharmaceuticals. D. Warburton was supported by a NSERC post- doctoral fellowship.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".