Abstract 057: Towards an Optimal Exercise Strategy for Reversing Low Cardiorespiratory Fitness: Distinct Effects of Exercise Volume and Intensity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although a majority of adults increase cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF; VO2 peak) in response to an increase in daily physical activity, the optimal exercise strategy for reversing low CRF is unknown. We performed a randomized, controlled trial designed to study the separate effects of habitual exercise differing in dose (energy expenditure, kcal/session) and intensity (relative to VO2max) on CRF. We randomly assigned sedentary, abdominally obese men and women to one of the following 4 conditions: 1) No-exercise control (C), 2) Low volume, low intensity exercise (LVLI: 180 [[female symbol]] and 300 [[male symbol]] kcal @ 50% VO2 peak), 3) High volume, low intensity exercise (HVLI: 360 [[female symbol]] and 600 [[male symbol]] kcal @ 50% VO2 peak), 4) High volume, high intensity (HVHI: 360 [[female symbol]] and 600 [[male symbol]] kcal @ 75% VO2 peak). All participants were required to exercise under supervision 5 times per week for 24 weeks. Adherence to exercise averaged 95% across groups. Exercise dose and intensity achieved was not different from that prescribed regardless of group. The minutes exercised per session were 30±7 in LVLI, 51±16 in HVLI and 36±11 in HVHI. A marked variability in CRF response to exercise was observed independent of group (Figure). Compared to controls, CRF increased within all exercise conditions (P<0.05). However, the CRF increase within the HVHI group (0.61±0.30L/min) was greater than both the HVLI (0.42±0.32L/min) and LVLI (0.26±0.28L/min) groups (P<0.05). Thus, despite matching exercise volume within the HVHI and HVLI groups, exercise at 75% of VO2peak was associated with a marked increase in CRF by compared to exercise at 50%. Given that the time required to achieve the energy expenditure within the HVHI group was 30% less than the HVLI group (36 vs 51 min), these findings have important implications for allied health professionals seeking options for prescribing exercise to improve a major risk factor for morbidity and mortality, cardiorespiratory fitness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".