Physiological basis of brief vigorous exercise to improve health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This review considers the physiological basis of brief vigorous exercise to improve health, with a focus on cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and glycaemic control, and the potential underlying mechanisms involved. We defined ‘brief’ as a protocol lasting ≤15 min including warm‐up, cool‐down and recovery, and involving a total of ≤5 min of ‘vigorous’ exercise, which was classified as meeting or exceeding the lower end of the range for this relative intensity as per the criteria from the American College of Sports Medicine. The physiological mechanisms responsible for the increase in CRF, as measured by maximal oxygen update ( ), after brief vigorous exercise are unclear and likely depend on various factors including the specific nature of the intervention as well as the time course of the response. Limited available evidence suggests the potential for an increased oxygen extraction by active muscle (i.e. greater arterio‐venous oxygen difference), since an increase in has been reported after several weeks of brief vigorous exercise despite no measurable change in cardiac output. Emerging evidence indicates that brief vigorous exercise can improve glycaemic control, suggesting that this type of exercise could potentially play a role in the prevention and management of type 2 diabetes. The acute response is not well characterized but several studies have shown that several weeks of vigorous exercise improves estimates of insulin sensitivity as determined by various methods including by hyperinsulinaemic–euglycaemic clamp. The physiological mechanisms underlying improved CRF and glycaemic control after brief vigorous exercise, and the broader impact on health, remain fruitful areas of investigation. image
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".