The performance and aerobic endurance effects of high-intensity versus moderate-intensity continuous running
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to investigate the performance and aerobic endurance effects of high-intensity (HICR) versus moderate-intensity continuous running (MICR), which were nonmatched for total work. Twenty healthy recreational athletes (aged 28 ± 5 years) were randomly assigned to an HICR, MICR, or no-intervention control (C) group. The HICR group (n = 7) performed a 20-min strenuous, almost exhausting, run above lactate threshold (LT) at ∼88% of maximal heart rate (HRmax), whereas the MICR group (n = 7) performed a 40-min run at ∼80% HRmax. Both the HICR and MICR groups performed 3 intervention sessions a week, in addition to ∼60% of their regular aerobic exercise, for 10 weeks. The C group (n = 6) performed regular physical exercise throughout the study. Time to exhaustion, during a ∼4–8-min ramp test procedure, was significantly increased by 23% and 24% (P < 0.01) following HICR or MICR, respectively, with no significant difference in the change in time to exhaustion (P = 1.00) at pre- to post-training between the 2 training modalities (HICR and MICR). In the HICR group, maximal oxygen consumption and velocity at LT increased significantly by 5.0% and 6.8% (P < 0.01), respectively. The MICR group increased relative maximal oxygen consumption (mL·kg−1·min−1) significantly by 4.7% (P < 0.05), whereas the pulmonary respiratory gas-exchange ratio was significantly decreased at a submaximal workload by 4.2% (P < 0.01), indicating enhanced fat oxidation. No performance or physiological effects were observed in the C group. The present study indicates that even with a substantially lower total energy turnover, HICR can be as performance enhancing as MICR. Moreover, HICR can increase maximal aerobic power, whereas MICR may enhance fat oxidation.
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) | 0.002 | 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".