MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215793128 · doi:10.1016/j.jesf.2021.11.003

Alternating high-intensity interval training and continuous training is efficacious in improving cardiometabolic health in obese middle-aged men

2021· article· en· W3215793128 on OpenAlex
Eric Tsz‐Chun Poon, Parco M. Siu, Waris Wongpipit, Martin J. Gibala, Stephen Heung‐Sang Wong

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Exercise Science & Fitness · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersChinese University of Hong KongResearch Grants Council, University Grants Committee
KeywordsMedicineInterval trainingHigh-intensity interval trainingContinuous trainingBioelectrical impedance analysisWaistPhysical therapyInternal medicineBody fat percentageObesityHeart rateBlood pressureBody mass index

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-intensity interval training (HIIT) or moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) alone has been shown to improve metabolic health, but the effects of alternating the two training approaches as often practiced in real life remained unclear. The purpose of the current study was to examine the effects of HIIT or MICT alone or alternating HIIT-MICT on cardiometabolic responses in inactive obese middle-aged men. Forty-two participants (age: 42 ± 5 y; BMI: 26.3 ± 2.1 kg m−2) were randomly assigned to four groups: HIIT (12 x 1-min running bouts at 80–90% HRmax interspersed with 1-min active recovery at 50% HRmax), MICT (40-min brisk walk at 65–70% HRmax), alternating HIIT-MICT or a non-exercise control group (CON). Exercise sessions were conducted three times per week for 16 weeks. Maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), body composition (by bioelectrical impedance analysis), blood pressure, fasting blood glucose, insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) and lipid profile were assessed at baseline and after the 16-week intervention. Enjoyment and self-efficacy were also assessed at the end of intervention. All exercise groups showed a similar VO2max increase of ∼15% (HIIT: 34.3 ± 4.4 vs 39.1 ± 5.4; MICT: 34.9 ± 5.0 vs 39.4 ± 7.2; and alternating HIIT-MICT: 34.4 ± 5.0 vs 40.3 ± 4.6 mL kg−1min−1) compared to baseline and CON (all p < 0.05). Weight, BMI, % fat and waist circumference also showed similar reductions in all exercise groups compared to baseline and CON (all p < 0.05). No significant group difference was observed for all blood markers. Compared to baseline, total cholesterol decreased after HIIT-MICT, while HIIT significantly decreased fasting insulin level and improved insulin resistance (p < 0.05). Enjoyment, self-efficacy and adherence were similar among all exercise groups. HIIT or MICT alone or alternating HIIT-MICT similarly improve cardiovascular fitness and body composition in obese middle-aged men despite differences in total training volume and time commitment.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score0.819

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.258 · 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