Does High Intensity Interval Training Improve Aerobic Power Development More Than Endurance Training?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine whether high intensity interval training (HIIT) increases VO2 max more so than to endurance training (ET). It is hypothesized that at the end of a 4-week training program, the HIIT group will have a higher average improved VO2 max percentage than the ET group. Recruited participants, 12 males, aged 18-35 completed a baseline VO2 max test followed by an intervention and then a post VO2 max test. Participants were randomly assigned to either HIIT or ET, 20 minutes a day, 3 times a week for 4 weeks. At baseline mean VO2 max for ET (n=6) was 48.2 ml/min/kg compared to a mean VO2 max of 51.7ml/min/kg in the HIIT (n=6) group. Post training test VO2 max for ET (n=6) was 48.9ml/min/kg compared to a mean VO2 max of 52.4ml/min/kg in the HIIT group (n=4). There was a 3.4% improvement in VO2 max in the HIIT group (n=4), while the ET group (n=6) had a 1.7% improvement in VO2 max. There were no significant differences (p>0.05) in height, weight, age, and VO2 max between the two groups in the baseline or post test. There were no significant differences in height, age, and VO2 max for either of the groups from the post test compared to the baseline test. Moreover, there were no significant differences in height, age, and VO2 max for either of the groups from the post-test compared to the baseline test. The data suggests a promising trend that HIIT training may be better for improving aerobic power than ET.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".