Cardiovascular and Type 2 Diabetes Risk Factors Response to a Traditional Fitness and 10,000 Step Exercise Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The effect of 6 months of traditional fitness training (T), 10,000 steps/d lifestyle program (L) and a control (C) period on cardiorespiratory, blood lipid and blood glucose markers were examined in 128 men and women. METHODS: The T program was supervised and periodized until 4 d/wk at 65% of peak VO2 for 39 min/session was achieved and then maintained during the last 2 months. Using pedometers, the L group was unsupervised but progressively overloaded until 10,000 steps/d was achieved and then maintained during the last 2 months. Estimated activity energy expenditure was matched between the T and L groups. The L and C groups were contacted regularly. An aerobic fitness test and blood samples were obtained at the beginning and end of the 6-month period. RESULTS: A significant increase in ventilatory threshold (VT) and peak VO2 was observed in subjects from the T group only. All 3 groups experienced a decrease in systolic BP at 3 different submaximal intensities after 6 months, but the greatest change occurred in the T group (p<0.05). Fasting plasma glucose (T=3.0%, L=2.4%, C=3.9%), 2-hour oral glucose tolerance levels (T=13.2%, L=4.7%, C=3.0%) and total cholesterol (T=3.8%, L=4.8%, C=3.9%) decreased in all 3 groups (p<0.05). Fasting plasma TG, HDL, LDL were unaltered in the 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The traditional fitness training program improved aerobic fitness and reduced systolic BP response to submaximal exercise more than the 10,000 step/d lifestyle program despite matched activity energy expenditure.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".