Development and validation of exercise target heart rate zones for overweight and obese pregnant women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Validated target heart rate (THR) zones for exercise prescription for overweight and obese pregnant women have not been developed. The purposes of this study were to determine if heart rate reserve (HRreserve) is best described by aerobic capacity at peak exercise or by aerobic capacity reserve (VO2 reserve) and to develop and validate THR zones for light-intensity exercise (20%-39%VO2 reserve) in sedentary overweight and obese pregnant women. One hundred six women between 16 and 20 weeks gestation with medical clearance performed a progressive treadmill test to volitional fatigue (peak). Data from every 4th subject were used for cross-validation. Two linear regression equations were performed for each subject, then pooled to obtain mean group values (+/- SD): %HRreserve vs. %VO2 peak and %HRreserve vs. %VO2 reserve. THR zones equivalent to 20%-39%VO2 reserve were developed and validated based on the strongest relationship. %HRreserve had a stronger linear relationship with %VO2 reserve (y = 1.046x -7.561; R2 = 0.741) than %VO2 peak (y = 1.259x -28.795; R2 = 0.604). Validated THR ranges for sedentary overweight and obese pregnant women are 102-124 beats.min-1 (20-29 years of age) and 101-120 beats.min-1 (30-39 years of age), representing an exercise intensity of 20%-39%VO2 reserve as recommended by the American College of Sports Medicine for previously sedentary pregnant women. Overweight and obese women who are medically prescreened can exercise during pregnancy within our validated THR zones. The relationship between HR and VO2 remains strong, but the two are not equivalent in this population group.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".