Aerobic and Resistance Training in Coronary Disease
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare resistance training (RT) (one set vs three sets) combined with aerobic training (AT) versus AT alone in persons with coronary artery disease. METHODS: Subjects (n = 72) were randomized to AT (5 d x wk(-1)) or combined AT (3 d x wk(-1)) with either one set (AT/RT1) or three sets (AT/RT3) of RT performed 2 d x wk(-1). VO2peak, ventilatory anaerobic threshold (VAT), strength and endurance, body composition, and adherence were measured before and after 29 wk of training. RESULTS: Fifty-three subjects (mean +/- SEM age 61 +/- 2) completed the training. The increase from baseline in VO2peak (L x min(-1)) averaged 11% for AT (P < 0.05), 14% for AT/RT1 (P < 0.01), and 18% for AT/RT3 (P < 0.001), however, the difference between groups was not significant. VAT improved significantly in the AT/RT3 group only (P < 0.05). The AT/RT3 group gained more lean mass than the AT group (1.5 versus 0.4 kg, P < 0.01), yet gains between AT/RT1 and AT were similar (P = 0.2). Only AT + RT groups demonstrated a reduction in body fat (P < 0.05). Strength and endurance increased more in the AT + RT groups than AT alone (P < 0.05). Adherence to number of sets performed was lower in AT/RT3 than AT/RT1 (P < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Combined AT + RT yields more pronounced physiological adaptations than AT alone and appears to be superior in producing improvements in VO2peak, muscular strength and endurance, and body composition. The data support the use of multiple set RT for patients desiring an increased RT stimulus which may further augment parameters that affect VO2peak, VAT, lower body endurance, and muscle mass in a cardiac population.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it