Combined Resistance And Aerobic Training Program On Functional Physical Performance In COPD Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poor exercise tolerance and peripheral muscle dysfunction are two of the most common things reported in moderate to severe COPD patients. Aerobic training improves exercise tolerance but has no major consequences on muscle weakness. On the other hand, resistance training of the lower limbs by itself can improve strength. Therefore a combination of strength and endurance during the same workout session rather than separate events could be a new training modality for COPD patients. PURPOSE: to assess a combined exercise protocol (resistance and endurance) that could improve exercise tolerance compared to an aerobic exercise protocol. METHODS: COPD patients in stable condition were randomized into experimental (Exp, n=6) and control (Ctl, n=2) groups (Age=69.5±6.1 VS 75.5±3.5 years, N.S; FEV1=0.71±0.19 VS 1.31±0.26 L, p=0.012, respectively). All patients had functional performance evaluated by the sit to stand test (STST) and the 6 minute walk test (6MWT). The patients in both groups received routine training sessions for 3 weeks (5 days per week). Training sessions in both groups comprised upper body strength exercises for 30 minutes; then, the Ctl group performed 30 minutes of aerobic exercise (motorized treadmill or ergocycle), and the Exp group completed 30 minutes of combined aerobic-resistance exercise (non-motorized treadmill belt, HiTrainerTM). The Borg scale was used to measure perception of effort. RESULTS: (mean±SD): All participants were able to complete three weeks of training (14±2 sessions). The STST after training showed that the Exp group performed significantly (p=.0001) better than the Ctl group (18.0±2.8 VS 10.5±0.70 repetitions per sec, respectively). Similarly, the Exp group performed significantly (p=.0001) better in the 6MWT when compared to the Ctl group (370±39 VS 250±14.1 meters). Interestingly, the perception of effort following the 6MWT was not significantly different between groups (Exp = 13.3±2.3 VS Ctl = 14.0±1.4, N.S.). CONCLUSION: It appears that a training modality that combines both resistance and aerobic training (non-motorized treadmill) is more efficient to improve performance in muscle endurance (STST) and aerobic capacity (6MWT).
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".