Effects Of High Intensity Exercise Training On Anaerobic And Aerobic Energy Contributions In Obese Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: While previous studies reported reduced aerobic and anaerobic aptitudes in obese individuals there is no data are available regarding aerobic and anaerobic energetic yield during exercise. Therefore, studying energetic muscle interactions for a given exercise may be the best approach to describing the true metabolic energy of the muscles of obese individuals and understanding the metabolic adaptations that occur in response to an exercise intervention in obese individuals. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the effects of six weeks of high intensity exercise training (HIET) and determine the relative anaerobic and aerobic contributions to total energy release during repeated supramaximal cycling exercises (SCE) in obese adults. METHODS: Twenty four obese adults (body mass index = ± 33 kg.m-2) were randomized into a control group (n=12) and an HIET group (n=12). Accumulated oxygen deficits (AOD) in ml.min-1 and anaerobic and aerobic contributions in % were measured in all groups before and after training via repeated SCE. RESULTS: Before HIET, anaerobic contributions to repeated SCE did not differ between the groups and decreased significantly during the 3rd and 4th repetitions. After HIET, anaerobic contributions and AOD increased significantly in the HIET group (p<0.01 respectively) and were significantly higher than those of the control group (p<0.01 respectively). Moreover, the peak power obtained during SCE increased significantly in the HIET group (+110 W.kg-1, p<0.01) and correlated positively with increases in anaerobic contributions (r=0.9, p<0.01). CONCLUSION: In obese adults, HIET increased anaerobic contributions to energy release in response to repeated SCE. These higher anaerobic contributions were accompanied by both greater AOD deficits and larger decreases in oxygen uptake during SCE repetitions. HIET may be an appropriate approach for enhancing the level of substrate phosphorylation from PCr hydrolysis and glycolysis during repeated supramaximal exercise bouts, which may be partially related to enhancements in the muscle efficacy of obese adults.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".