| Title |
Low-volume, high-intensity, aerobic interval exercise for sedentary adults: V˙O2max, cardiac mass, and heart rate recovery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Applied Physiology, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00421-014-2917-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tomoaki Matsuo, Kousaku Saotome, Satoshi Seino, Miki Eto, Nobutake Shimojo, Akira Matsushita, Motoyuki Iemitsu, Hiroshi Ohshima, Kiyoji Tanaka, Chiaki Mukai |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to compare the effects of low-volume, high-intensity aerobic interval training (HAIT) on maximal oxygen consumption ([Formula: see text]O2max), left ventricular (LV) mass, and heart rate recovery (HRR) with high-volume, moderate-intensity continuous aerobic training (CAT) in sedentary adults. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 33% |
| Monaco | 1 | 11% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 11% |
| Belgium | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 3 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 56% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 182 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | 1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Turkey | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 175 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 31 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 30 | 16% |
| Researcher | 11 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 27 | 15% |
| Unknown | 42 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 64 | 35% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 13 | 7% |
| Unknown | 49 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 October 2017.
All research outputs
#6,354,045
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#1,628
of 4,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,260
of 243,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#27
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 243,403 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.