The Investigation of the Physical and Performance Effects of High-Intensity Interval Training (HITT) on Sedentary University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the physical and selected performance characteristics of 9-week High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) on sedentary university students. Participants were separated two groups as HIIT and control group (CG). HIIT group applied training 3 times a week for 9 weeks. CG was not applied any training. Before and after HIIT training program, the subjects were applied to age, height, body weight (BW), body mass index (BMI) tests for physical parameters and standing long jump (SLJ), vertical jump (VJ), 10-20 m sprint, T agility test (TAT), star excursion balance test (SEBT), running-based anaerobic sprint test (RAST) for performance parameters. Multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to analyze of inter-group, intra group and the effect of training in repeated measurements. Bonferroni test was used for Post Hoc comparisons; the significance level was accepted as 0.05. There was a significant difference in BW, BMI and all performance parameters in favor of HIIT group. HIIT provided effective development to physical and performance characteristics of university students.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".