Concurrent exercise circuit protocol performed in public fitness facilities meets the American College of Sports Medicine guidelines for energy cost and metabolic intensity among older adults in Rio de Janeiro City
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study investigated whether a single bout of concurrent exercise (Ex Rx) at Third Age Academies (TAAs) in Rio de Janeiro City meets the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) guidelines for energy cost and metabolic intensity in older adults. Nine subjects (5 males and 4 females, 63–80 years of age) visited the laboratory for clinical screening and for anthropometrical, resting, and maximal oxygen uptake assessments. Thereafter, subjects performed an Ex Rx circuit consisting of a single circuit alternating aerobic and resistance exercises with outdoor exercise equipment using body mass as the load (total of 9 exercises, 1–2 sets of 15 repetitions). Expired gases were collected via a metabolic cart during exercise bouts. The mean observed energy cost value of 169.1 kcal was slightly greater than the minimum value of 150 kcal reported in the ACSM guidelines (p = 0.018). Like energy cost, all the intensity markers adopted to analyze the physiological strain induced by the Ex Rx circuit significantly exceeded their reference values for moderate intensity (reference values: 3.2 METs (mean observed value = 4.6 METs, p = 0.002); 40% of oxygen uptake reserve (mean observed value = 51.5%, p = 0.040); 40% of heart rate reserve (mean observed value = 64.1%, p < 0.001)), according to the ACSM guidelines. In conclusion, a single bout of Ex Rx circuit performed at TAAs in Rio de Janeiro City was able to induce a physiological strain (i.e., energy cost and intensity) compatible with ACSM recommendations for eliciting health benefits among older adults.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".