Aerobic energy expenditure during recreational weight training in females and males.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of gender on aerobic energy expenditure (EE) during weight training has not been systematically researched. We determined the absolute and relative EE during the performance of two weight training programs of different intensities, durations and total work in males and females. Eight male and seven female recreational weight trainers (20-29 y) completed two randomly ordered weight training sessions involving 2 sets of 8 standard upper and lower body lifts at a set cadence separated by 45 seconds rest between sets and lifts (48 hrs apart). Heavy (H) at 100% 8 Repetition Maximum (8RM), 8 reps, ~19 min duration and light (L) at 85% 8RM, 15 reps, ~23 min duration. VO2 was determined continuously throughout the training sessions. Lean body mass (LBM) was estimated from skin fold measures and body weight. Energy expenditure was estimated from breath-by-breath metabolic measurements using portable metabolic assessment equipment (Cosmed K4b(2)). Absolute EE (total kJ) and rate of energy expenditure per minute (kJ per min) were not significantly different between H and L intensities and male and female subjects. The rate of EE averaged between approximately 10-12 kJ per min. However, relative EE (J per kg LBM per min per unit work) were significantly higher (p < 0.02) for females compared to males in both H: (26.46±8.06 females vs 14.36±3.02 males) and L: (19.91±4.28 females vs. 9.83±3.28 males), intensities. It was concluded that females rely on a greater relative aerobic EE than males when performing recreational type weight lifting programs.
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".