Changes in aerobic capacity and glycaemic control in response to reduced-exertion high-intensity interval training (REHIT) are not different between sedentary men and women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previously it has been reported that reduced-exertion high-intensity interval training (REHIT; total training time of 3 × 10 min per week) improves maximal aerobic capacity in both sedentary men and women, but improves insulin sensitivity in men only. The aim of the present study was to determine whether there is a true sex difference in response to REHIT, or that these findings can be explained by the large interindividual variability in response inherent to all exercise training. Thirty-five sedentary participants (18 women; mean ± SD age for men and women, respectively: age, 33 ± 9 and 36 ± 9 years; body mass index, 25.1 ± 2.1 and 24.1 ± 3.5 kg·m −2 ; maximal aerobic capacity, 38.6 ± 8.3 and 31.6 ± 4.6 mL·kg −1 ·min −1 ) completed a 6-week REHIT programme consisting of eighteen 10-min unloaded cycling sessions with 1 (first session) or 2 (all other sessions) “all-out” 10–20-s sprints against a resistance of 5% of body mass. Maximal aerobic capacity and oral glucose tolerance test-derived insulin sensitivity were determined before and after training. REHIT was associated with an increase in maximal aerobic capacity (2.54 ± 0.65 vs. 2.78 ± 0.68 L·min −1 , main effect of time: p < 0.01), a trend toward reduced plasma insulin area-under-the-curve (AUC; 6.7 ± 4.8 vs. 6.1 ± 4.0 IU·min −1 ·mL −1 , p = 0.096), but no significant change in plasma glucose AUC or the Cederholm index of insulin sensitivity. Substantial interindividual variability in response to REHIT was observed for all variables, but there was no significant effect of sex. In conclusion, REHIT improves the key health marker of aerobic capacity within a minimal total training time-commitment. There is large interindividual variability in responses to REHIT, but sex differences in the responses are not apparent.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".