Exercise snacks are a time-efficient alternative to moderate-intensity continuous training for improving cardiorespiratory fitness but not maximal fat oxidation in inactive adults: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aims of this study were (1) to determine how stair-climbing-based exercise snacks (ES) compared to moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) for improving cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), and (2) to explore whether ES could improve maximal fat oxidation rate (MFO) in inactive adults. Healthy, young, inactive adults ( n: 42, age: 21.6 ± 2.3 years, BMI: 22.5 ± 3.6 kg·m −2 , peak oxygen uptake (VO 2 peak): 33.6 ± 6.3 mL·kg −1 ·min −1 ) were randomly assigned to ES, MICT, or Control. ES ( n = 14) and MICT ( n = 13) groups performed three sessions per week over 6 weeks, while the control group ( n = 15) maintained their habitual lifestyle. ES involved 3 × 30 s “all-out” stair-climbing (6 flight, 126 steps, and 18.9 m total height) bouts separated by >1 h rest, and MICT involved 40 min × 60%–70% HR max stationary cycling. A significant group × time interaction was found for relative VO 2 peak ( p < 0.05) with ES significantly increasing by 7% compared to baseline (MD = 2.5 mL·kg −1 ·min −1 (95% CI = 1.2, 3.7), Cohen’s d = 0.44), while MICT had no significant effects (MD = 1.0 mL·kg −1 ·min −1 (−1.1, 3.2), Cohen’s d = 0.17), and Control experienced a significant decrease (MD = −1.7 mL·kg −1 ·min −1 (−2.9, −0.4), Cohen’s d = 0.26). MFO was unchanged among the three groups (group × time interaction, p > 0.05 for all). Stair climbing-based ES are a time-efficient alternative to MICT for improving CRF among inactive adults, but the tested ES intervention appears to have limited potential to increase MFO.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".