Effects of Moderate-Intensity Training Under Cyclic Hypoxia on Cardiorespiratory Fitness and Hematological Parameters in People Recovered From COVID-19: The Aerobicovid Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:Recent studies have indicated that people who live at altitude have a lower incidence of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and lesser severity in infection cases.Hypothesis:Hypoxia exposure could lead to health benefits, and it could be used in the recovery process as an additional stimulus to physical training to improve cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF).Study Design:Randomized controlled clinical trial.Level of Evidence:Level 2.Methods:The 43 participants, aged 30 to 69 years, were divided into control group (CG, n = 18) and 2 training groups: normoxia (NG, n = 9) and hypoxia (HG, n = 16). Before and after the intervention were evaluated the lactate threshold 2 (L2), peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak), and a blood sample was collected at rest to evaluate hematological adaptation. Both groups performed an 8-week moderate-intensity physical training on a bike. The HG were trained under normobaric hypoxic conditions (fractional inspired oxygen [FiO2] = 13.5%).Results:The 8-week intervention promoted a similar improvement in CRF of people recovered from COVID-19 in the HG (L2 = 34.6%; VO2peak = 16.3%; VO2peak intensity = 24.6%) and NG (L2 = 42.6%; VO2peak = 16.7%; VO2peak intensity = 36.9%). Only the HG presented differences in hematological variables (erythropoietin = 191.7%; reticulocytes = -32.4%; off-score = 28.2%) in comparison with the baseline.Conclusion:The results of the present study provide evidence that moderate-intensity training in normoxia or hypoxia promoted similar benefits in CRF of people recovered from COVID-19. Furthermore, the hypoxia offered an additional stimulus to training promoting erythropoietin increase and hematological stimulation.Clinical Relevance:The present exercise protocol can be used for the rehabilitation of people recovered from COVID-19, with persistent low CRF. In addition, this is the first study demonstrating that physical training combined with hypoxia, as well as improving CRF, promotes greater hematological stimulation in people recovered from COVID-19.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".