Physiological Responses to Indoor Versus Outdoor Training in Postmenopausal Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic effects of two different exercise environments on self-chosen intensity and physiological adaptations were examined in postmenopausal women. Twenty-three healthy to overweight (body mass index [BMI] 22-29 kg/m2) postmenopausal women performed three weekly training sessions during 12 weeks and were assigned to either: (1) indoor training or (2) outdoor training. Body composition, metabolic profile, and physical fitness (including Vo2max, maximal strength, and endurance) were assessed pre- and postintervention. Exercise intensity was measured every week during the training. Maximum intensity decreased significantly in time only in outdoor training (p ≤ .05). Body composition and VO2max were significantly improved indoors (p ≤ .05), whereas resting blood pressure and upper body maximal strength and endurance were improved outdoors (p ≤ .05). Indoor training is associated with maintaining intensity over time and slightly higher physiological improvements than outdoor training. However, outdoor training seems promising from a long-term perspective, due to its positive effects on health parameters and exercise adherence.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".