MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410972402 · doi:10.3389/fragi.2025.1493827

Enhancing active aging through exercise: a comparative study of high-intensity interval training and continuous aerobic training benefits

2025· review· en· W4410972402 on OpenAlex
Federico Zoila, Francesca Martina Filannino, Maria Antonietta Panaro, Italo Sannicandro, Antonia Cianciulli, Chiara Porro

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Aging · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHigh-intensity interval trainingTraining (meteorology)Interval trainingContinuous trainingAerobic exercisePhysical therapyIntensity (physics)Physical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePsychologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.275 · 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