MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

High-intensity Interval Training Versus Moderate-intensity Continuous Training For Improving Cardiometabolic Measures

2015· article· en· W2465395079 on OpenAlexaff
Emily Robinson, Mary E. Jung, Jessica E. Bourne, Jonathan P. Little

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHigh-intensity interval trainingMedicineInterval trainingContinuous trainingPrediabetesInternal medicineVO2 maxAnthropometryEndocrinologyPhysical therapyType 2 diabetesHeart rateDiabetes mellitusBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent evidence suggests that high-intensity interval training (HIIT) may result in superior cardiometabolic benefits compared to traditional moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT), but comparisons of these adaptations being sustained independently has not been adequately studied. PURPOSE: To investigate maintenance of cardiometabolic adaptations to HIIT or MICT in inactive adults with prediabetes over six months of independent exercise. METHODS: 30 females and 6 males with prediabetes (age = 51 ± 10 yr) were randomly assigned to a 10 d progressive HIIT (n= 18, 4-10 X 1-min @ ∼85% peak oxygen uptake [VO2peak]) or MICT (n=18, 20-50 min @ ∼60% VO2peak) supervised training program. Fasting glucose and insulin, anthropometrics, and VO2peak were assessed before and after training. Individuals were then prescribed to maintain, on their own, thrice weekly sessions of 10 x 1 min @ ∼85% VO2peak (HIIT) or 50 min @ ∼60% VO2peak (MICT), returning for testing at 1 and 6 months. RESULTS: 10 d of both HIIT and MICT led to improvements in VO2peak (P < 0.001, ∼6.1%; 1.80 ± .4 vs. 1.91 ± .5 L/min, pre vs. post), which was maintained at 1 (P = .002, ∼5%; 1.89 ± .5 L/min) but not 6 months. However, one-way RM ANOVA indicated a trend towards the improvement being maintained at 6 months in HIIT (P = .052) but not MICT (P = .817). Results for relative VO2peak and peak workload were similar. There were no significant changes in plasma glucose, insulin or HOMA-IR after HIIT but both fasting insulin (P = .027) and HOMA-IR (P = .017) increased at 1 (∼37%) and 6 months (∼44%) compared to pre training levels in MICT. No significant differences in free fatty acids, waist circumference, or body mass were noted in either group over time. CONCLUSIONS: The significant improvement in aerobic fitness achieved from 10 d supervised training was maintained after 1, but not 6 months of independent exercise performed as either HIIT or MICT. However, HIIT was able to prevent the apparent deterioration in fasting insulin and HOMA-IR experienced by individuals with prediabetes who were attempting to maintain MICT independently. This study provides preliminary evidence that HIIT may be more effective in preventing the worsening of metabolic function in independently exercising individuals at elevated risk of type 2 diabetes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207