Evaluating Exercise Training Effects on VO2max: A Systematic Review of Protocol Efficacy and Measurement Variability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite extensive research on the effects of exercise training on VO2max, current literature still lacks to be more conclusive regarding the optimal protocols for maximizing these effects. Variability in study designs, participant populations, and measurement techniques has contributed to inconsistencies in findings, leaving important questions unanswered regarding the most effective exercise strategies. Purpose: This systematic review aims to integrate current research to understand better how different exercise interventions influence VO2max outcomes. Methods: Using Covidence, a web-based platform for systematic reviews, 22,617 studies were initially imported. Following rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria, such as focusing on experimental studies with human participants aged 18 or older, VO2max measured via indirect calorimetry, and supervised aerobic training, 724 studies were selected for detailed analysis. Results: A swift analysis of imported studies reveals that most of the studies included in this review were conducted in the United States (n=158), Canada (n=75), and Australia (n=59), reflecting a predominance of research from these regions. Among the studies analyzed, 159 employed moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT), 100 utilized high-intensity interval training (HIIT), and 54 implemented sprint interval training (SIT). This distribution highlights the varied approaches to exercise training across different geographical locations and research settings, providing a broad base for understanding how these protocols impact VO2max. Conclusion: The findings from further analysis of this data will help clarify the impact of various exercise intensities and modalities on VO2max, offering guidance for optimizing training protocols, as such it serves as a crucial tool for addressing key questions in exercise physiology, including whether there are significant sex differences in VO2max responses and which exercise training protocols are most effective.
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 | 0.154 | 0.397 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".