Effects of Stair Climbing Training on Cardiopulmonary Endurance in Gym Users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Stair climbing is an effective, easy to approach and inexpensive moderate to high intensity exercise with great effects in improving functional status of individuals.High intensity interval training (HIIT) protocol is also a short time exercise with greater long term effects in improving cardiopulmonary endurance. Aim: To examine the effects of stair climbing on cardiopulmonary endurance in gym users in addition to High intensity interval training (HIIT) protocol and to measure the effects of stair climbing on blood lactate in gym users. Methods: 32 healthy individuals including males and females have been divided into two groups all the participants were gym users from past three months .Control group followed HITT protocol only and experimental group performed stair climbing in addition to HIIT protocol. Time duration of the training was 8 weeks .Individuals were assessed before and after the training for VO2max, and blood lactate. Body Mass Index, Rate of Perceived Exertion, and O2cost, modified Canadian Aerobic Fitness Test (mCAFT) stages Blood Pressure, Heart Rate has also been assessed before and after training. Results: Results has shown the significant increase in VO2 max (p value 0.001) and lower levels of blood lactate (≤0.001) within the groups after training. There was no significant improvement in VO2max and blood lactate formation on comparison between the groups. Conclusion: Current study concluded that there was significant increase in VO2 max and blood lactate with stair climbing in addition to HIIT protocol in gym users within the groups but there is no significance between the groups. It means both the protocols been followed are significant with almost equal affects and both are equally beneficial. Keywords: Stair Climbing Training, High intensity interval training (HIIT), modified Canadian Aerobic Fitness Test (mCAFT)
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".