Comparison of health benefits between a high intensity interval training and a moderate intensity continuous training when performed in a nonlaboratory setting, in moderately obese women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this pilot study was to compare the effects of a high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and a moderate intensity continuous training (MICT) performed within a fitness center, on various health indices of 49 sedentary and moderately obese women (age 37 ± 7 years; BMI 32 ± 4 kg/m2) randomly assigned to supervised exercise on a cycle ergometer, 3 times/week, during 12 weeks, at 60% (MICT, n=24) or 85% (HIIT, n=25) of their heart rate reserve for weeks 5-12. Anthropometry, body composition, cardiorespiratory fitness, CRF (2 km-walking test estimated V;˙O2max), quality of life, QoL (SF-36 Questionnaire), eating behaviors (Three Factor Eating Questionnaire, TFEQ) and perceived health (Short Health Perceived Questionnaire, SHPQ) were obtained before and after training from 10 HIIT vs. 13 MICT participants who completed the program. At baseline, both groups showed similar characteristics, except for a better sleep quality (SHPQ) in MICT than in HIIT participants (p<0.005). Increases in CRF (+3 to +5%) and decreases in body weight (-2%) and thus BMI (-2.5 to -4.5%), waist girth (-4%) and fat mass (-6 to - 8%) were comparable (0.0001
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".