Energy expenditure during an exercise training session for cardiac patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing energy expenditure (EE) in cardiac patients remains a challenge. Exercise approaches in cardiac rehabilitation/secondary prevention programs (CR/SP) have consistently resulted in minimal weight loss, due in part to the low exercise-related EE. The purpose of this study was to measure the EE among patients participating in a routine exercise session of Phase III maintenance CR/SP, where a recreational activity was introduced. Twelve overweight/obese male patients with coronary artery disease (aged 62.6 ± 8.5 years) had their total EE measured during a combined aerobic (circuit workout (ACW) and recreational activity) and resistance training (RT) session using a portable gas analyzer. Subjects were instructed to exercise at 60%-70% of heart rate reserve. Activity EE was calculated from total EE and resting EE. The duration of the session was 75.3 ± 1.5 min, of which 59.7 ± 8.8 min were above moderate intensity (3-6 METs). Activity EE was 309 ± 76 kcal, concurring to a total EE of 457 ± 80 kcal (3.9 ± 0.8 METs-h). ACW, recreational activity, and RT fulfilled 34.4% ± 6.4%, 25.0% ± 5.3%, and 14.2% ± 2.7% of the activity EE, respectively. Absolute intensities (METs) were significantly different between the RT (3.9 ± 1.0) and the ACW (6.9 ± 1.8) and recreational activity (5.9 ± 0.8). In conclusion, a combined aerobic and resistance training following standard exercise prescription practices, coupled with a recreational activity, is an effective tool to promote exercise above moderate intensity in male coronary artery disease patients. Clinicians can adopt concepts from recreational activity to develop CR/SP sessions.
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) | 0.002 | 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".