Acute fetal response to high-intensity interval training in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The majority of women do not meet the recommended levels of exercise during their pregnancies, frequently due to a lack of time. High-intensity interval training offers a potential solution, providing an effective, time-efficient exercise modality. This exercise modality has not been studied in pregnancy therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate fetal response to a high-intensity interval training resistance circuit in the late second and early third trimesters of pregnancy. Fourteen active, healthy women with uncomplicated, singleton pregnancies participated in a high-intensity interval training resistance circuit between 28 + 0/7 and 32 + 0/7 weeks. A Borg rating of perceived exertion of 15–17/20 and an estimated heart rate of 80%–90% of maternal heart-rate maximum was targeted. Fetal well-being was evaluated continuously with fetal heart-rate tracings and umbilical artery Doppler velocimetry conducted pre-and post-exercise. Fetal heart rate tracings were normal throughout the exercise circuit. Post-exercise, umbilical artery end-diastolic flow was normal and significant decreases were observed in the mean systolic/diastolic ratios, pulsatility indexes and resistance indexes. Therefore, in a small cohort of active pregnant women, a high-intensity interval training resistance circuit in the late second and early third trimesters of pregnancy appears to be a safe exercise modality with no acute, adverse fetal effects but further study is required. Novelty: High-intensity interval training, at an intensity in excess of current recommendations, does not appear to be associated with any adverse fetal effects in previously active pregnant women. High-intensity interval training is an enjoyable and effective exercise modality in previously active pregnant women.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".