Resistance Training Contribute to the Aerobic Components of an Exercise Session in Adults but not as Much in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International Journal of Exercise Science 10(3): 406-416, 2017. Previous research has indicated that active adults are able to achieve moderate intensity as measured via heart rate during a typical resistance training (RT) session. The main objective was to identify if overweight adults and older adults can reach aerobic moderate intensity at a rate comparable to adults displaying a recommended body mass index. Twenty participants in each group were asked to visit a fitness facility twice if they self-reported doing RT for a minimum two days per week. At the first session baseline characteristics and maximal lifting capacity for each RT exercise. At the second, intensity was monitored via heart rate monitor during a RT exercise program composed of 10 exercises targeting major muscle groups. Three sets of 10 repetitions at 70% of maximal load were completed for each exercise. Moderate intensity was defined as a minimum of 40% of heart rate reserve. The proportion of time spent at moderate to vigorous intensity between the comparison group and the overweight adult group was not significantly different, with a median (25th -75th) proportion time of 82.6% (69.2-94.6) versus 92.5% (73.3-99.1); p=.54 or an average time of 42 minutes versus 45 minutes. The older adults group, however, spent a lower proportion of time at moderate to vigorous intensity compared with the comparison group, 51.5% (22.0-86.6) or 24 minutes; p<.01 compared with the comparison group. This study suggests that a good proportion of time spent doing RT can contribute to an aerobic component of the international guidelines, and therefore reduce the weekly time commitment especially for men and women age below 60 years old.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".