High-Intensity Interval or Continuous Moderate Exercise: A 24-Week Pilot Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: High-intensity interval training (HIIT) may lead to superior cardiometabolic improvements when compared with moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT). However, adherence to HIIT requires examination. The purpose of this pilot study was to examine moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) adherence 24 wk after a brief counseling intervention combined with either HIIT or MICT. METHODS: Individuals at high risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D) were randomized to HIIT (n = 15) or MICT (n = 17) and completed 10 exercise sessions accompanied by a brief 10-min counseling intervention over a 2-wk period. Objectively measured purposeful MVPA (accelerometry) and cardiorespiratory fitness (V˙O2peak) were assessed at baseline and 24 wk postintervention. Self-regulatory efficacy and task self-efficacy were examined at baseline, postintervention, and 24 wk postintervention. Using an intention-to-treat analysis, change scores were calculated for HIIT and MICT and compared between groups. RESULTS: Individuals assigned to HIIT increased their MVPA by 53 min (Cohen's d = 1.52) at 24 wk compared with 19 min in MICT. Both HIIT and MICT increased relative V˙O2peak by 2 and 1 mL·kg·min, respectively. Participants in both groups increased in their self-regulatory and task self-efficacy postintervention, but both groups demonstrated similar decline at 24 wk. CONCLUSION: This pilot intervention was successful in increasing, and maintaining, free-living MVPA over a 24-wk period in individuals at high risk of T2D. Speculation that HIIT is inappropriate or unattainable for overweight individuals at high risk of T2D may be unfounded.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".