Changes in Ventilatory Threshold with Exercise Training in a Sedentary Population: The Heritage Family Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of exercise training intensity relative to the ventilatory threshold (VT) on changes in work (watts) and VO2 at the ventilatory threshold and at maximal exercise in previously sedentary participants in the HERITAGE Family Study. We hypothesized that those who exercised below their VT would improve less in VO2 at the ventilatory threshold (VO2vt) and VO2max than those who trained at an intensity greater than their VT. Supervised cycle ergometer training was performed at the 4 participating clinical centers, 3 times a week for 20 weeks. Exercise training progressed from the HR corresponding to 55% VO2max for 30 minutes to the HR associated with 75% VO2max for 50 minutes for the final 6 weeks. VT was determined at baseline and after exercise training using standardized methods. 432 sedentary white and black men (n = 224) and women (n = 208), aged 17 to 65 years, were retrospectively divided into groups based on whether exercise training was initiated below, at, or above VT. RESULTS: 1) Training intensity (relative to VT) accounting for about 26% of the improvement in VO2vt (R2 = 0.26, p < 0.0001). 2) The absolute intensity of training in watts (W) accounted for approximately 56% of the training effect at VT (R2 = 0.56, p < 0.0001) with post-training watts at VT (VT(watts)) being not significantly different than W during training (p > 0.70). 3) Training intensity (relative to VT) had no effect on DeltaVO2max. These data clearly show that as a result of aerobic training both the VO2 and W associated with VT respond and become similar to the absolute intensity of sustained (3 x /week for 50 min) aerobic exercise training. Higher intensities of exercise, relative to VT, result in larger gains in VO2vt but not in VO2max.
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".