Acute Cardiopulmonary Response to Interval and Continuous Exercise in Older Adults: A Randomized Crossover Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Linares, AM, Goncin, N, Stuckey, M, Burgomaster, KA, and Dogra, S. Acute cardiopulmonary response to interval and continuous exercise in older adults: a randomized crossover study. J Strength Cond Res 36(10): 2920–2926, 2022—The purpose of this study was to compare the cardiopulmonary response with different exercise protocols in healthy older adults. Subjects ( n = 30; 15 women, age: 69.6 ± 6.2 years) completed an exercise test (MAX) on a cycle ergometer to determine maximal oxygen consumption (V̇ o 2 max) and peak power output (PPO). Exercise sessions were randomized: high-intensity interval exercise (HIIE, 1 minute 90% PPO followed by 1 minute 10% PPO, ×10), moderate-intensity continuous exercise (MOD, 20 minutes at 50% PPO), and sprint-interval exercise (SPRT, 20 seconds “all-out” sprints followed by 2 minutes at 50 W, ×3). V̇ o 2 max was highest during MAX in men (MAX: 28.2 ± 6.3; MOD: 22.6 ± 4.5; HIIE: 26.7 ± 5.7; SPRT: 26.0 ± 4.3; F (2.1) = 28.6, p = 0.0001, = 0.67), whereas similar peaks were observed between HIIE, SPRT, and MAX in women (MAX: 21.9 ± 6.1; MOD: 18.9 ± 4.5; HIIE: 21.6 ± 5.3; SPRT: 21.7 ± 3.9; F (2.2) = 10.2, p = 0.0001, = 0.42). The peak heart rate (b·min −1 ) was similar across all exercise sessions in both men (MAX: 148.1 ± 17.1; MOD: 132.6 ± 21.8; HIIE: 144.9 ± 16.6; SPRT: 148.6 ± 14.2; F (1.9) = 9.1, p = 0.001, = 0.41) and women (MAX: 148.1 ± 13.1; MOD: 136.3 ± 18.2; HIIE: 147.0 ± 16.4; SPRT: 148.5 ± 18.0; F (2.0) = 5.3, p = 0.011, = 0.27). The %V̇ o 2 at which sessions were performed varied significantly across individual subjects. In conclusion, older women work at near maximal V̇ o 2 when performing HIIE and SPRT; this has implications for exercise testing and prescription protocols in older adults.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".