Description of training loads using whole-body exercise during high-intensity interval training
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe external training load and internal training load through sets of a single session of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) body work. METHODS: Twenty male individuals (24±3 years) performed a HIIT body work protocol consisting of a single bout of exercise with 1:1 stimuli. The exercises used were 30 min in duration with "all-out" intensity. The exercises included jumping jacks, mountain climbers, burpees and squat jumps, totaling 20 min of exercise. During exercise, total movement capacity, blood lactate measurement, ratings of perceived exertion and recovery, training load and intensity were monitored. RESULTS: The single bout examined showed a total of 382±89 movements. Differences (p<0.01) in the total amount of movement for each exercise were noted, reflecting the difficulty of maintaining exercise over time. Increases in lactate concentrations (before: 0.98±0.16, after: 14.10±1.66; mmol/L) were found postexercise. Significant differences (p<0.01) were found after the fifth set, and the values for movement capacity remained higher than the values of the first set, demonstrating high load in a single session. No differences in ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) during the sets were found. However, the ratings of perceived recuperation from the second set were significantly (p<0.01) lower than those from the first set. CONCLUSIONS: The exercise protocol used in this study was of high intensity and produced large values for stress during performance, with increases recorded for the internal load indicators.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it