MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Brief, Intense Intermittent Stair Climbing Is A Practical, Time-Efficient Method To Improve Cardiorespiratory Fitness

2016· article· en· W2466197739 on OpenAlexaff
M. Kathryn Allison, Brian J. Martin, Martin J. MacInnis, Brendon J. Gurd, Martin J. Gibala

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStairsCardiorespiratory fitnessStair climbingClimbingPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineSprintHeart rateRating of perceived exertionBlood pressureInternal medicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sprint Interval Training (SIT), involving brief intermittent bursts of very intense exercise, has been touted as a time-efficient alternative to traditional endurance training for improving cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and clinical markers of health. Most SIT protocols, such as Wingate-based cycling, have been studied in a laboratory setting and require specialized equipment, which is impractical for many individuals. Stair climbing may be a more suitable and accessible alternative to laboratory-based SIT. While established as an effective form of exercise to enhance CRF, the minimum effective “dose” of stair climbing remains unknown. PURPOSE: To determine whether brief, intense intermittent stair climbing improves CRF. METHODS: Twelve sedentary but otherwise healthy women (age = 26±11 y; BMI = 23.6±3.0 kg/m2) trained 3 d/wk for 6 wk. Each 10-min training session involved a 2-min warm up, 3x20-s bouts of intense stair climbing interspersed with 2 min of recovery, and a 3-min cool-down. Training was performed using the stairwell of a 6-storey campus building. Subjects were instructed to climb stairs as fast as safely possible. Recovery periods involved descending the stairs slowly and walking on flat ground. RESULTS: Participants climbed 59±4 stairs (height climbed = 11.4±0.8 m) during each bout. Mean power output was 365±40, 354±38 and 337±35 W for the three bouts, with corresponding ratings of perceived exertion scores of 12±1, 14±2, and 16±2, respectively. Training elicited 81±4% of maximum heart rate (HRmax) on average over the 10-min session, 86±3% HRmax during the 3x20-s bouts, and peak HR was 94±3% of HRmax. Peak oxygen uptake (VO2 peak) increased by 13% from 28.9±3.7 to 32.4±3.6 mL O2•kg-1•min-1 after training (p<0.01). Absolute VO2 peak similarly increased from 1.8±0.2 to 2.0±0.3 mL O2•min-1 (p<0.01) as body mass was unchanged after training (62.2±9.5 vs. 62.6±9.6 kg, p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Brief, intense intermittent bursts of stair climbing, involving only 3 min of “all-out” exercise within a 30-min time commitment per week increased CRF by ~1 metabolic equivalent over 6 wk. This change is similar to that previously reported after laboratory-based SIT protocols of similar duration, and traditional endurance training involving a much higher exercise volume and time commitment.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

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)0.0040.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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