Cardiorespiratory Adaptation to Pilates Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several authors report health improvements with training based on the Pilates Method; however, no explicit analysis has been performed on cardiorespiratory effects after Method exclusive training. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of 15 weeks of Pilates training on cardiorespiratory fitness in young, sedentary women. Method: A total of 13 sedentary women 21–35 years volunteered and signed an informed consent for the observational study of a single group, performing control-test, pre- and post-exercise measurements. The Pilates program was conducted for 15 weeks, with two 50-min sessions per week. Cardiorespiratory responses were assessed using an open circuit ergospirometry system by gas analyzer (MGC, model CPX/D). Results: During the 15-week program, statistically significant advances were observed in maximum oxygen consumption F (1.25; 13.78) = 18.95; p =.001; ω2 =.858 with large effect size (r =.81; p <.001), first ventilatory threshold F (1.19; 13.15) = 20.43; p =.001; ω2 =.034 with large effect size (r =.77; p <.05) and second ventilatory threshold F (1.18; 13.00) = 24.56; p =.001 also presenting a large effect size (r =.85; p <.05). Conclusion: These results indicate that practicing Pilates for 30 × 50 min sessions had a positive influence on cardiorespiratory parameters in healthy sedentary women with low respiratory capacities.
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) | 0.000 | 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".