Is High-intensity Stair Climbing An Effective Alternative To Traditional Cardiac Rehabilitation Exercise?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Engagement in exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation following cardiac procedures reduces the risk of secondary coronary artery disease (CAD) events. Interval training can be a time-efficient and effective alternative to traditional moderate-intensity exercise in cardiac rehabilitation programming, and an accessible way to deliver interval training is through stair climbing. PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility and effectiveness of high-intensity interval training intervention, using stair climbing as the modality, in standard cardiac rehabilitation care. METHODS: Twenty participants with CAD (61±7 y, 18M/2W) were randomly assigned to one of two exercise programs: traditional moderate-intensity exercise (TRAD) or high-intensity interval stair climbing (STAIR). VO2peak was assessed at baseline, one month and three months after exercise initiation. Exercise was completed two times/week for one month under clinical supervision, and three times/week for two months unsupervised. Each participant completed sessions of either an accumulation of 45 min at 80 %HRpeak (TRAD) or 3 bouts of 6 flights of 12 stairs at a self-selected vigorous intensity (~90s/bout) separated by recovery periods of walking (~90s) (STAIR). RESULTS: Eighteen participants (90%) completed the intervention without any adverse events. Following one month of supervised exercise, the STAIR versus TRAD group achieved a higher peak HR 131±9 vs.111±13bpm (p=0.002, means±SD), and exercise intensity 106±11 vs.89±1%HRpeak, across a shorter time 3.1±0.8 vs. 36.7±5.5 min (p<0.001). Peak VO2 increased in both TRAD and STAIR, (23±3 to 25±4 and 21±5 to 24±6 mL/kg/min) respectively (p=0.03). Additional unsupervised training (2mo), the STAIR group achieved a higher peak HR, 126±13 vs.111±9 bpm (p=0.018) and less time at prescribed intensity 6.5±3.9 vs. 24.2±17 min (p=0.012), when compared to the TRAD group. There was no difference in exercise intensity 96±8 vs. 87±8 %HRpeak (p=0.055) or adherence 3.0±3.2 vs. 3.2±2.2 (p=0.70) exercise sessions/week, between the STAIR and TRAD groups. CONCLUSIONS: High-intensity interval training using stair climbing as the modality, is safe and effective within cardiac rehabilitation programming.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".