MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Effects Of Aquatic High Intensity Interval Training (AHIIT) DWR On Cardiometabolic Health In Elderly Women

2024· article· en· W4402662905 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. Y. Kwok Manny, Jonathan Myers, Billy C. L. So

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHigh-intensity interval trainingEnvironmental scienceIntensity (physics)Training (meteorology)Interval (graph theory)MedicineDemographyMeteorologyGeographyMathematicsPhysical therapyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aquatic High Intensity Interval Training has the potential to improve cardiometabolic health and cognition, while minimizing musculoskeletal strain compared to land-based training. Deep water running (DWR) has emerged as a promising method, offering a reduced risk of injuries and greater affordability for inactive elderly women. PURPOSE: To investigate the effects of an 8-week AHIIT- DWR intervention compared to land-based HIT training (LHIIT) on cardiometabolic health and cognitive outcomes in elderly women. METHODS: Sixty-nine inactive elderly women aged 60 or above were randomly assigned into two groups: AHIIT and LHIIT. The AHIIT group engaged in DWR sessions comprising 30-minutes of interval training, consisting of ten 2-minute exercise bouts at 80-90% of their maximal heart rate (HR max), with 1-minute active recovery at 70% HR max between bouts. The LHIIT group performed treadmill running at the same intensity. Both groups trained twice a week. Aerobic capacity including VO2 max, oxygen pulse, respiratory exchange ratio (RER), minute ventilation (VE) and HR max were assessed using a metabolic analyzer. Lipid profiles were measured through blood analysis. Cognitive function was evaluated using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) and Mini- mental status examinations (MMSE). RESULTS: Both groups showed similar cardiovascular fitness (VO2max) improvement (AHIIT-DWR: 20.88 ± 4.49 to 23.29 ± 5.14; LHIIT: 22.84 ± 6.6 to 25.82 ± 4.66 mL kg−1 min−1, p < 0.05) and RER (AHIIT-DWR: 1.01 1.42 to 1.04 ± 0.10; LHIIT: 0.99 ± 0.10 to 1.16 ± 0.09, p < 0.05) over the 8- week intervention. Compared to baseline, significant differences were identified in VE between AHIIT-DWR and LHIIT group. (AHIIT-DWR: 64.64 ± 11.60; LHIIT: 55.11 ± 12.64, p < 0.05). No significant group differences were observed for cardiometabolic blood markers such as lipid profiles, fasting glucose or cognitive function measured by MOCA and MMSE. AHIIT-DWR showed a high unsupervised adherence rate (>90%). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that AHIIT-DWR can elicit a similar improvement in cardiometabolic fitness as LHIIT in inactive older women. AHIIT-DWR and LHIIT had no differences in cardiometabolic blood markers or cognitive function.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicCardiovascular and exercise physiology→French-language works237,207→