Simple Bodyweight Training Improves Cardiorespiratory Fitness With Minimal Time Commitment: A Contemporary Application of the 5BX Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International Journal of Exercise Science 14(3): 93-100, 2021. Bodyweight training (BWT) is a style of interval exercise based on classic principles of physical education. Limited research, however, has examined the efficacy of BWT on cardiorespiratory fitness. This is especially true for simple BWT protocols that do not require extraordinarily high levels of effort. We examined the effect of a BWT protocol, modelled after the original “Five Basic Exercises” (5BX) plan, on peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) in healthy, inactive adults (20 ± 1 y; body mass index: 20 ± 5 kg/m2; mean ± SD). Participants were randomized to a training group that performed 18 sessions over six weeks (n=9), or a non-training control group (n = 10). The 11-minute session involved five exercises (burpees, high knees, split squat jumps, high knees, squat jumps), each performed for 60-seconds at a self-selected “challenging” pace, interspersed with active recovery periods (walking). Mean intensity during training was 82 ± 5% of maximal heart rate, rating of perceived exertion was 14 ± 3 out of 20, and compliance was 100%. ANCOVA revealed a significant difference between groups after the intervention, such that VO2peak was higher in the training group compared to control (34.2 ± 6.4 vs 30.3 ± 11.1 ml/kg/min; p = 0.03). Peak power output during the VO2peak test was also higher after training compared to control (211 ± 43 vs 191 ±50 W, p = 0.004). There were no changes in leg muscular endurance, handgrip strength or vertical jump height in either group. We conclude that simple BWT— requiring minimal time commitment and no specialized equipment — can enhance cardiorespiratory fitness in inactive adults. These findings have relevance for individuals seeking practical, time-efficient approaches to exercise.
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) | 0.003 | 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".