MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Does Exercise Choice Matter For Cardiorespiratory Fitness Improvements?

2020· article· en· W3042003980 on OpenAlexaff
Elena Ivanova, Jonathan P. Little, Mary E. Jung

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiorespiratory fitnessMedicineHigh-intensity interval trainingPhysical therapyInterval trainingPrediabetesType 2 diabetesDiabetes mellitusEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) is an important risk factor for cardiometabolic disease and individuals with prediabetes tend to have low CRF. Trials that have compared High-Intensity Interval Training(HIIT) to Moderate-Intensity Continuous Training(MICT) by imposingindividuals to HIIT or MICT haveestablished that HIIT is effective for improving CRF. However, to maintain these improvements, individuals need to adhere to HIIT. Self-determination theory states that providingchoicehas a positive impact on exercise adherence. PURPOSE:To address whether having the choice to engage in HIITor MICT for 6-months (CHOICE) leads to greater changes in CRF (absolute and relative VO2peak) at 6-months when compared to IMposed HIIT (IM-HIIT)or IMposed MICT (IM-MICT) in adults with prediabetes. METHODS: In this single-site randomized trial, 68 low-active adults (56.8±6.6 yrs, mean±SD) living with prediabetes were randomized to CHOICE (n=24), IM-HIIT (n=21), or IM-MICT (n=23). After an initial supervised training period (6 sessions over 3 weeks) participants exercised unsupervised on their own in free-living conditions for 6 months. A ramp increase cycle ergometer test to exhaustion was conducted by the same technician pre- and post-testing to determine VO2peak. Missing data was accounted for using linear interpolations generated with SPSS®v.20.0. RESULTS: ANCOVA results with baseline CRF as a covariate revealed no significant differences between increases in absolute VO2peak (CHOICE: 0.38, 95% CI; 0.20, 0.55, vs. IM-HIIT: 0.56, 95% CI; 0.37, 0.74 vs. IM-MICT: 0.30, 95% CI; 0.12, 0.48 L/min, F2,64=1.99, P=.14), with similar findings for relative VO2peak (F2,67=0.32, P=.73). Within group changes over time indicated small effect sizes (Hedge’s g) for increases in absolute (CHOICE= 0.00; HIIT = 0.26; and MICT=0.01) and relative VO2peak over time (CHOICE = 0.11; HIIT = 0.33; and MICT=0.15). CONCLUSION:Changes in CRF between groups randomized to perform HIIT or MICT, or given the choice of HIIT or MICT, were not significantly different at 6-months post-intervention. Providing choice for selecting HIIT or MICT did not appear to enhance the benefits of exercise for improving fitness in low active adults. Supported by the Research Endowment from the American College of Sports Medicine Foundation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicCardiovascular and exercise physiology→French-language works237,207→