Brief Intense Stair Climbing Improves Cardiorespiratory Fitness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Sprint interval training (SIT) is a time-efficient strategy to improve cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF); however, most protocols have been studied in laboratory settings and require specialized equipment. We investigated the efficacy of brief intense stair climbing as a practical model of SIT to improve CRF. METHODS: Two separate studies, each consisting of an acute and chronic phase, were conducted in a total of 31 sedentary women (age = 24 ± 10 yr, body mass index = 23 ± 4 kg·m). RESULTS: The acute phase of study 1 established that the mean HR, blood [lactate], and RPE were similar when participants (n = 8) performed an SIT protocol that involved 3 × 20-s "all-out" efforts of either continuously ascending stairs or cycling. The chronic phase demonstrated that CRF, as determined by peak oxygen uptake (V˙O2peak), increased by 12% or ~1 MET (8.27 ± 1.05 to 9.25 ± 1.01 METs, P = 0.002) when participants (n = 12) performed the 3 × 20-s stair climbing protocol 3 d·wk for 6 wk. The acute phase of study 2 established that HR and RPE were similar when participants (n = 11) performed three different stair climbing protocols: the 3 × 20-s continuous ascent model used in study 1 and two 3 × 60-s models of ascending and descending either one or two flights of stairs (P > 0.05). The chronic phase demonstrated that V˙O2peak increased by 7% (8.91 ± 1.30 to 9.51 ± 1.52 METs, P = 0.01) when the same group of participants performed the one-flight 3 × 60-s protocol 3 d·wk for 6 wk. The Cederholm index determined from an oral glucose tolerance test was 57 ± 17 and 64 ± 21 mg·L·mmol·mU·min before and after training, respectively (P = 0.056). CONCLUSION: Brief, intense stair climbing is a practical, time-efficient strategy to improve CRF in previously untrained women.
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) | 0.001 | 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".