The Feasibility of a 12-week Supervised High Intensity Circuit Training Program in Obese Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Overweight children have reduced exercise capacity and increased aortic stiffness conferring an increased risk of future cardiovascular disease. High intensity exercise training has been shown to improve exercise capacity and reverse aortic stiffness in obese adults. PURPOSE: To describe a novel exercise intervention designed to improve exercise capacity and determine its role in modifying vascular stiffness in obese children. METHODS: Ten to 18 year old children with a BMI ≥ 97th percentile for age are currently being recruited. Using a prospective randomized crossover design, subjects undergo a 12-week supervised high intensity exercise program. During the exercise phase, subjects attend twice-weekly, 75 minute periodized circuit training sessions. A resting echocardiogram and cardiopulmonary treadmill exercise test are performed before and after both the exercise intervention and a 12-week control phase where they receive no intervention. There is an 8-week wash-out period between study phases. Standardized spirometry is used to assess pulmonary mechanics. Physical activity is quantified using tri-axial accelerometry during both study phases. RESULTS: To date 13 subjects have been enrolled; of these, we have complete data for 5 subjects (age 16+3.2 years; ht. 169.4+17.6 cm; wt. 108.1+31.7 kg), 2 have withdrawn prior to starting the protocol, 2 withdrew part way through the protocol, and 4 are in progress. Participants completing the exercise program have attended a minimum of 75% of the required 24 scheduled workouts. Following the exercise intervention, there was a 6% increase in VO2 (L/min) (pre-intervention 3.391+1.023; post-intervention 3.611+1.039) Accelerometry data provided at least three days of physical activity counts for each study phase. All subjects had healthy pulmonary function testing. CONCLUSION: A high intensity exercise training program is feasible in obese children and may improve VO2. Challenges in recruitment and retention in this population of children requires consideration. Funding: 2013-14 British Columbia Children’s Hospital Foundation Telethon Projects Competition
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".