Aerobic adaptations following two iso-effort training programs: an intense continuous and a high-intensity interval
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The intensity of the training stimulus and the effort exerted (regarded as an index of internal load) to complete an exercise session are driving forces for physiological processes and long-term training adaptations. This study compared the aerobic adaptations following two iso-effort, ratings of perceived exertion (RPE)-based training programs, an intense continuous (CON) and a high-intensity interval (INT). Young adults were assigned to a CON ( n = 11) or an INT ( n = 13) training group to perform 14 training sessions within 6 weeks. The INT group performed running bouts (9.3 ± 4.4 repetitions) at 90% of peak treadmill velocity (PTV) with bout duration equal to 1/4 of time to exhaustion at this speed (134.2 ± 27.9 s). The CONT group ran (1185.0 ± 487.6 s) at a speed corresponding to −2.5% of critical velocity (CV; 80.1% ± 3.0% of PTV). Training-sessions were executed until RPE attained 17 on the Borg scale. VO2max, PTV, CV, lactate threshold velocity (vLT), and running economy were assessed pre-, mid-, and post-training. Both CONT and INT methods increased ( p < 0.05) VO2max (INT: 57.7 ± 8.1–61.41 ± 9.2; CONT: 58.1 ± 7.5–61.1 ± 6.3 mL kg−1 min−1), PTV (INT: 14.6 ± 1.8–15.7 ± 2.1; CONT: 15.0 ± 1.7–15.7 ± 1.8 km h−1), CV (INT: 11.8 ± 1.4–12.8 ± 1.8; CONT: 12.2 ± 1.6–12.9 ± 1.7 km h−1), and vLT (INT: 9.77 ± 1.1–10.8 ± 1.4; CONT: 10.4 ± 1.4–11.0 ± 1.8 km h−1) with no differences ( p > 0.05) between them; running economy remained unchanged. The continuous training method, when matched for effort and executed at relatively high intensity at the upper boundaries of the heavy-intensity domain (∼80% of PTV), confers comparable aerobic adaptations to those attained after a high-intensity interval protocol following a short-term training period.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".