Endurance and Sprint Training Improve Glycemia and V˙O2peak but only Frequent Endurance Benefits Blood Pressure and Lipidemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Sprint interval training (SIT) has gained popularity as a time-effective alternative to moderate-intensity endurance training (END). However, whether SIT is equally effective for decreasing cardiometabolic risk factors remains debatable, as many beneficial effects of exercise are thought to be transient, and unlike END, SIT is not recommended daily. Therefore, in line with current exercise recommendations, we examined the ability of SIT and END to improve cardiometabolic health in overweight/obese males. METHODS: Twenty-three participants were randomized to perform 6 wk of constant workload SIT (3 d·wk-1, 4-6 × 30 s ~170% Wpeak, 2 min recovery, n = 12) or END (5 d·wk-1, 30-40 min, ~60% Wpeak, n = 11) on cycle ergometers. Aerobic capacity (V˙O2peak), body composition, blood pressure (BP), arterial stiffness, endothelial function, glucose and lipid tolerance, and free-living glycemic regulation were assessed pre- and posttraining. RESULTS: Both END and SIT increased V˙O2peak (END ~15%, SIT ~5%) and glucose tolerance (~20%). However, only END decreased diastolic BP, abdominal fat, and improved postprandial lipid tolerance, representing improvements in cardiovascular risk factors that did not occur after SIT. Although SIT, but not END, increased endothelial function, arterial stiffness was not altered in either group. Indices of free-living glycemic regulation were improved after END and trended toward an improvement after SIT (P = 0.06-0.09). However, glycemic control was better on exercise compared with rest days, highlighting the importance of exercise frequency. Furthermore, in an exploratory nature, favorable individual responses (V˙O2peak, BP, glucose tolerance, lipidemia, and body fat) were more prevalent after END than low-frequency SIT. CONCLUSION: As only high-frequency END improved BP and lipid tolerance, free-living glycemic regulation was better on days that participants exercised, and favorable individual responses were consistent after END, high-frequency END may favorably improve cardiometabolic health.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".