Effect of Short Bouts of Vigorous Stair Climbing on Cardiorespiratory Fitness in Women with Overweight and Obesity: A Pilot Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study examined the effect of 4 weeks of a brief vigorous stair climbing exercise on cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and body composition in overweight or obese women.Methods: Twenty-six participants (age, 25.4±4.9years; body mass index [BMI], 25.3±1.8kg/m 2 ) were randomly assigned to either a stair climbing exercise group (n=13) or a nonexercising control group (n=13).The stair climbing exercise group performed 20 sessions (supervised, five sessions/week over 4 weeks) of brief intermittent stair climbing exercise consisting of a 3-minute warm-up followed by three bouts of 20 seconds of stair climbing (≥80% of age-predicted maximum heart rate) interspersed with 2-minute recovery periods (total exercise duration=10 minutes/session).Peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) was measured using a graded maximal treadmill test with the use of a standard open-circuit spirometry technique.Body composition was assessed with bioelectrical impedance analysis.Results: All participants except one, who left the study due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection, completed the study with 100% attendance rates.There were significant interaction effects (group X time) on body weight, BMI, waist circumference, and CRF such that the stair climbing exercise group had significant (P≤0.01)reductions in body weight (66.5±4.6 to 65.2±4.6 kg), BMI (24.8±1.2 to 24.4±1.1 kg/m 2 ), and waist circumference (78.0±3.7 to 76.5±4.1 cm) and improvements in VO2peak (31.6±2.5 to 34.9±2.6 mL/kg/min) compared with controls.Conclusion: Short bouts of vigorous stair climbing is a feasible and time-efficient exercise strategy for improving CRF in previously sedentary, overweight, or obese young 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".