↓ Skip to main content

Similar cardiometabolic effects of high- and moderate-intensity training among apparently healthy inactive adults: a randomized clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
139 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
Similar cardiometabolic effects of high- and moderate-intensity training among apparently healthy inactive adults: a randomized clinical trial
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12967-017-1216-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robinson Ramírez-Vélez, Alejandra Tordecilla-Sanders, Luis Andrés Téllez-T, Diana Camelo-Prieto, Paula Andrea Hernández-Quiñonez, Jorge Enrique Correa-Bautista, Antonio Garcia-Hermoso, Rodrigo Ramirez-Campillo, Mikel Izquierdo

Abstract

Metabolic syndrome (MetS) increases the risk of morbidity and mortality from cardiovascular disease, and exercise training is an important factor in the treatment and prevention of the clinical components of MetS. The aim was to compare the effects of high-intensity interval training and steady-state moderate-intensity training on clinical components of MetS in healthy physically inactive adults. Twenty adults were randomly allocated to receive either moderate-intensity continuous training [MCT group; 60-80% heart rate reserve (HRR)] or high-intensity interval training (HIT group; 4 × 4 min at 85-95% peak HRR interspersed with 4 min of active rest at 65% peak HRR). We used the revised International Diabetes Federation criteria for MetS. A MetS Z-score was calculated for each individual and each component of the MetS. In intent-to-treat analyses, the changes in MetS Z-score were 1.546 (1.575) in the MCT group and -1.249 (1.629) in the HIT group (between-groups difference, P =  0.001). The average number of cardiometabolic risk factors changed in the MCT group (-0.133, P = 0.040) but not in the HIT group (0.018, P = 0.294), with no difference between groups (P = 0.277). Among apparently healthy physically inactive adults, HIT and MCT offer similar cardiometabolic protection against single MetS risk factors but differ in their effect on average risk factors per subject. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02738385 registered on March 23, 2016.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 138 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 14%
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 11%
Researcher 9 6%
Student > Postgraduate 8 6%
Other 27 19%
Unknown 46 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 30 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 51 37%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 25 June 2017.
All research outputs
#2,518,666
of 15,921,004 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#374
of 3,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,213
of 272,583 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,921,004 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 272,583 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them