↓ Skip to main content

Development of low-volume, high-intensity, aerobic-type interval training for elderly Japanese men: a feasibility study

Overview of attention for article published in European Review of Aging and Physical Activity, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Development of low-volume, high-intensity, aerobic-type interval training for elderly Japanese men: a feasibility study
Published in
European Review of Aging and Physical Activity, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s11556-017-0184-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yosuke Osuka, Muneaki Matsubara, Ai Hamasaki, Yuji Hiramatsu, Hiroshi Ohshima, Kiyoji Tanaka

Abstract

The purposes of this study were to identify 1) the feasibility of a novel exercise protocol (elderly Japanese male version of high-intensity interval aerobic training: EJ-HIAT) and 2) its preliminary data (%V̇O2peak, rating of perceived exertion) in comparison with traditional moderate-intensity continuous aerobic training (MICT). Twenty-one sedentary elderly men, aged 60-69 years, performed two exercise protocols: EJ-HIAT, consisting of 3 sets of 2-3-min cycling at 75-85%V̇O2peak with 1-2-min active rests at 50%V̇O2peak between sets, and MICT, consisting of 40-min cycling at 65%V̇O2peak. The completion rate, defined as the rate of participants who 1) did not demand withdrawal, 2) were not interrupted by the tester, and 3) did not change the workload during either exercise protocol, of EJ-HIAT was similar to that of MICT (EJ-HIAT: 100%, MICT: 95.2%). Maximal perceived exertion ratings assessed by Borg scale were also similar between EJ-HIAT and MICT. However, objectively measured maximal intensity assessed by %V̇O2peak was higher for EJ-HIAT than for MICT (EJ-HIAT: 86.0 ± 5.6%, MICT: 67.1 ± 6.4%). These results suggested that EJ-HIAT has good feasibility and perceived exertion similar to MICT despite having higher objectively measured intensity than MICT. An intervention aimed as identifying the effects of EJ-HIAT on exercise tolerance should be performed in the future. UMIN000021185 (February 26, 2016).

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 4 8%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 11 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 17 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 11 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 August 2017.
All research outputs
#21,415,544
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from European Review of Aging and Physical Activity
#152
of 166 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#280,987
of 320,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Review of Aging and Physical Activity
#7
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 166 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 320,016 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.