Low-Volume High-Intensity Interval Training Versus Moderate-Intensity Continuous Training on Body Composition, Cardiometabolic Profile, and Physical Capacity in Older Women
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 compare the effect of low-volume high-intensity interval training (HIIT) with moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on fat mass, cardiometabolic profile, and physical capacity, and confirm its feasibility in older women. Methods : Inactive older women (60–75 years) were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of either HIIT (75 min/week; n = 9) or MICT (150 min/week; n = 9). Body composition, fasting metabolic profile, cardiovascular risk (Framingham score), and physical capacity (senior fitness test, peak oxygen uptake) were assessed before and after the intervention. Feasibility was evaluated with completion rate (training compliance; dropout rate) and affective response (Feeling Scale; pre- and postexercise). Results : Total cholesterol level, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, and the Framingham risk score decreased in both groups ( p s ≤ .03). Although peak oxygen uptake remained unchanged, the 6-min walk test distance increased ( p < .0001), irrespective of the group. Completion rate and affective responses were not different between groups ( p s ≥ .38). Conclusion : A short-term HIIT program is feasible and provides as much benefits as MICT in older women.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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