Enhancing active aging through exercise: a comparative study of high-intensity interval training and continuous aerobic training benefits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: As global life expectancy increases, the importance of maintaining health and functional independence in older adults becomes paramount. This study investigates the comparative effects of High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) and Continuous Aerobic Training (CAT) on physical fitness, cognitive function, and overall wellbeing in older populations. Methods: This review analyzed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on older adults (aged 60-85) engaged in High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) and Continuous Aerobic Training (CAT). Key metrics included cardiovascular fitness, measured via VO2 max tests and 6-minute walk tests; muscle strength, assessed using handgrip dynamometry and sit-to-stand tests; and cognitive performance, evaluated with Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Trail Making Tests (TMT). Mental health was assessed using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and quality of life was measured with the SF-36 Health Survey. A total of 18 RCTs were included. Results: Across the reviewed studies, both HIIT and CAT produced significant health benefits in older adults. HIIT led to a 15%-20% increase in VO2 max, a 12% improvement in muscle strength, and a 10%-15% enhancement in cognitive function, particularly in memory and executive tasks (MoCA scores). HIIT also reduced fall risk by 23%, likely due to its impact on dynamic balance and coordination. CAT, meanwhile, improved aerobic capacity by 10%-15% and was particularly effective in reducing depressive symptoms by 5%-10%, as measured by the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). CAT also showed moderate benefits for mental wellbeing and mood regulation. Discussion: While both HIIT and CAT show significant short-term benefits, their long-term effects need more exploration. HIIT has demonstrated sustained improvements in VO2 max and cognitive function for up to 6 months, but its long-term impact on age-related decline is unclear. CAT offers lasting benefits for aerobic capacity and mental health, though more data are needed on its effect on long-term functional independence. Future research should focus on longitudinal studies to assess the durability of these benefits and explore combining HIIT and CAT for optimal outcomes. Additionally, using wearable technology to track adherence and progress could provide valuable insights.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".