Acute Responses to High-Intensity Intermittent Exercise in CHD Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: although the acute physiological responses to continuous exercise have been well documented in CHD patients, no previous study has examined the responses to high-intensity intermittent exercise in these patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the physiological responses to a high-intensity interval exercise (HIIE) protocol versus a moderate-intensity continuous exercise (MICE) protocol of similar energy expenditure in CHD patients. METHODS: twenty patients with stable CHD (19 males and 1 female, 62 ± 11 yr) were assigned in random order to a single session of HIIE corresponding to 15-s intervals at 100% of peak power output (PPO) and 15-s passive recovery intervals and, 2 wk later, to an isocaloric MICE corresponding to 70% of PPO. RESULTS: both protocols were equivalent in terms of energy expenditure. The HIIE protocol resulted in lower mean ventilation (P < 0.001) for a small difference in metabolic demand. All participants preferred the HIIE mainly because the perceived exertion measured by the Borg scale was lower (P < 0.05). No elevation of serum concentration of troponin T was found in all participants at baseline and at 20 min and 24 h after the exercise sessions, thus excluding the presence of any exercise-induced myocardial injury in our patients. CONCLUSIONS: when considering physiological responses, safety, and perceived exertion, the HIIE protocol seemed to be well tolerated and more efficient in this group of stable CHD patients.
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) | 0.001 | 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".