Effects of High-Intensity Interval Walking on Cognitive and Physical Functions in Older Adults: A Randomized Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Walking is widely recognized as a prevalent form of daily exercise worldwide. However, fewer studies have explored the health outcomes of different intensities of walking exercise for older adults. Thus, the study aimed to investigate the effects of walking at different exercise intensities on body composition, emotions, cognition, and physical function among older adults. Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the effects of walking at different exercise intensities on body composition, emotions, cognition, and physical function after eight weeks of group walking. Specifically, the study focused on the potential benefits of high-intensity interval walking (HIIW), exploring whether HIIW could have a more positive impact on the physical function and overall health of older adults compared to moderate-intensity continuous walking (MICW). Methods: Participants aged 65 years or older were randomly assigned to either HIIW (n=13, 85% HRmax and 55% HRmax, alternating every three minutes) or MICW (n=13, 70% HRmax), engaging in group walking exercises for 30 minutes three times a week. The pre-test and post-test evaluations included body composition, cognition, emotions, and physical function. Results: The two-minute step test showed significant improvements over time (p<0.0001) and time-group interaction (p=0.004), and sit and reach showed significant changes over time (p<0.0001). The independent T-test showed significant differences between the HIIW and MICW groups (two-minute step test: t (24)=1.80, p=0.04; sit and reach test: t (19)=3.65, p<0.001) at post-measurement. Additionally, no significant differences were found in body composition (weight, p=0.74; body mass index (BMI), p=0.35; body fat mass, p=0.45; skeletal muscle mass (SMM), p=0.77), emotions (geriatric depression scale (GDS), p=0.79; quality of life (QOL), p=0.54; Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, p=0.24), and cognitive function (CoSAS total score, p=0.25) between the HIIW and MICW groups after exercise. Grip strength, balance, 30-second chair stand, back scratch, and eight-foot up and go tests showed no significant effects in the time-group interaction. Conclusion: Regular HIIW exercise has positive effects on physical functions such as cardiorespiratory endurance and flexibility in older adults, indicating the potential for establishing a foundation for developing customized exercise programs in the future.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".