Whole-Body Strength Training Using a Huber Motion Lab in Coronary Heart Disease Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate safety, tolerance, relative exercise intensity, and muscle substrate oxidation during sessions performed on a Huber Motion Lab in coronary heart disease patients. DESIGN: After an assessment of Vo2 peak, 20 coronary heart disease patients participated in two different exercises performed in random order at 40% and 70% (W40 and W70) of the maximal isometric voluntary contraction. RESULTS: No significant arrhythmia or abnormal blood pressure responses occurred during either session, and no muscle soreness was reported within 48 hrs posttest. The authors found a difference between W40 and W70 sessions for mean (standard deviation) ventilation (25.1% [8%] and 32.1% [9%] of maximal ventilation, respectively; P = 0.04) and a small difference for mean (standard deviation) heart rate (73 [7] and 79 [8] beats/min, respectively; P < 0.01). When compared with the W40, the W70 was associated with higher active energy expenditure (2.4 [0.6] and 3.1 [0.9] Kcal/min, respectively; P < 0.0001) and a similar mean (standard deviation) oxygen uptake (5.5 [1] and 6.6 [1] ml/min per kilogram, respectively; P = 0.07). The qualitative percentages of carbohydrates and lipids oxidized were 71% and 29%, respectively, at W40 and 91% and 9%, respectively, at W70. CONCLUSIONS: Both protocols, which consisted of repeating 6-sec phases of contractions with 10 secs of passive recovery on the Huber Motion Lab, seemed to be well tolerated, safe, and feasible in this group of coronary heart disease 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) | 0.002 | 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".