The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 10 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
&OV0312;O2 reserve and the minimal intensity for improving cardiorespiratory fitness
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: The American College of Sports Medicine has stated that aerobic training needs to occur at a minimum threshold intensity of 50% VO(2max) for most healthy adults and at 40% VO(2max) for those with a very low initial fitness. Recently, the concept of VO(2) reserve (%VO(2R), i.e., a percentage of the difference between maximum and resting VO(2)) has been introduced for prescribing exercise intensity. This analysis was designed to determine the threshold intensity for improving cardiorespiratory fitness expressed as %VO(2R) units. METHODS: Previous studies in healthy subjects (N = 18) that evaluated the results of training at low-to-moderate intensities (i.e., < or = 60% VO(2max)) were identified. The original studies described the intensity of exercise variously as %VO(2max), %HRR, %HR(max), or as a specific HR value. In each case, the intensity was translated into %VO(2R) units. RESULTS: Exercise training intensities below approximately 45% VO(2R) were consistently ineffective at increasing VO(2max) in studies that used subjects with mean initial VO(2max) values > 40 mL x min(-1) x kg(-1). In studies using subjects with mean initial VO(2max) values < 40 mL x min(-1) x kg(-1), no intensity was found to be ineffective. For this latter group of subjects, the lowest intensities examined were approximately 30% VO(2R). CONCLUSION: Although evidence for a threshold intensity was not strong, this analysis of training studies supports the use of 45% VO(2R) as a minimal effective training intensity for higher fit subjects and 30% VO(2R) for lower fit subjects.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This analysis converted low-to-moderate training intensities from 18 prior studies into %VO2 reserve units to estimate the minimal intensity needed to raise VO2max. It supports roughly 45% VO2R for higher-fit subjects and roughly 30% VO2R for lower-fit subjects, while noting that evidence for a strict threshold is not strong.
Key findings
- For groups with mean initial VO2max above 40 mL·min⁻¹·kg⁻¹, training below about 45% VO2R was consistently ineffective at increasing VO2max; intensities above this level generally produced improvements.
- For groups with mean initial VO2max below 40 mL·min⁻¹·kg⁻¹, every examined training intensity produced significant VO2max gains, with the lowest intensities around 28–32% VO2R; the proposed minimal effective intensity was about 30% VO2R.
- When translated back to %VO2max, 30% VO2R in lower-fit groups (mean VO2max 28.9 mL·min⁻¹·kg⁻¹) corresponded to about 38% VO2max, and 45% VO2R in higher-fit groups (mean VO2max 44.7 mL·min⁻¹·kg⁻¹) corresponded to about 49% VO2max, close to earlier ACSM guidelines of 40% and 50% VO2max.
- Among 15 studies comparing two or more intensities, 5 found significantly greater VO2max improvement at the higher intensity and 8 showed a nonsignificant trend in the same direction.
Methods
- The author identified 18 studies of healthy adults from ACSM position stands, a MEDLINE search, and cross-referenced bibliographies; inclusion required pre- and post-training VO2max measurement and at least one group training at approximately ≤60% VO2max.
- Reported intensities were converted into %VO2R: %HRR was treated as equivalent to %VO2R; %VO2max was converted using gross exercise VO2 and an assumed resting VO2 of 3.5 mL·min⁻¹·kg⁻¹; %HRmax was converted with a formula derived from heart rate/VO2 data.
- Training groups were collated by initial VO2max categories and translated intensity to examine whether a minimal effective intensity differed by fitness level.
Limitations
- The paper states that translating prior intensities into %VO2R was indirect, especially for studies reporting specific heart rates or %HRmax, and that all conversions used group means rather than individual data; the findings are therefore preliminary.
- The paper states that the higher-fit groups showing no improvement came from small studies with only 4–9 subjects per group and about 100 min·wk⁻¹ for 5–10 weeks, so low statistical power or insufficient training volume may explain the negative results.
- The paper states that no threshold was apparent for lower-fit groups because intensities below 30% VO2R were not routinely tested; it also notes that between-study differences in duration, frequency, and program length make comparisons tenuous. Evident from the text, this is a narrative collation rather than a formal meta-analysis.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
9 Own interpretation · 8 Own result · 3 Not checked yet · 3 No basis given · 2 No full text of the sources · 2 Own method · 1 Sources not found
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Exercise training intensities below approximately 45% V ˙O2 R were consistently ineffective at increasing V ˙O2max in studies that used subjects with mean initial V ˙O2max values Ͼ 40 mL•min Ϫ1 •kg Ϫ1 .”
§ V ˙O2 reserve and the minimal intensity for improving cardiorespiratory fitness > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For this latter group of subjects, the lowest intensities examined were approximately 30% V ˙O2 R.”
§ V ˙O2 reserve and the minimal intensity for improving cardiorespiratory fitness > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This analysis found fairly strong support for the thesis that training at higher intensities results in greater percentage improvements in aerobic capacity than does training at lower intensities, even when the lower intensity exercise is performed with a sufficient duration to accomplish the same total amount of work (i.e., duration was varied inversely with intensity so that work output was held”
§ V ˙O2 reserve and the minimal intensity for improving cardiorespiratory fitness > DISCUSSION
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In studies using subjects with mean initial V ˙O2max values Ͻ 40 mL•min Ϫ1 •kg Ϫ1 , no intensity was found to be ineffective.”
§ V ˙O2 reserve and the minimal intensity for improving cardiorespiratory fitness > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Table 1 reveals a trend for greater percentage improvements in V ˙O2max when training at higher versus lower exercise intensities.”
§ V ˙O2 reserve and the minimal intensity for improving cardiorespiratory fitness > RESULTS
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Thus, in its 1998 position stand (28), the ACSM revised its exercise prescription recommendations to use %V ˙O2 R, rather than %V ˙O2max , as a means for establishing exercise intensity.”
§ V ˙O2 reserve and the minimal intensity for improving cardiorespiratory fitness > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [28] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As illustrated in Figure 1, the minimal effective training intensities identified in this analysis vary in a direct manner with the pretraining aerobic capacity.”
§ V ˙O2 reserve and the minimal intensity for improving cardiorespiratory fitness > DISCUSSION
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“this analysis of training studies supports the use of 45% V ˙O2 R as a minimal effective training intensity for higher fit subjects”
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION · hedged
“The current analysis suggests that a threshold intensity may exist at approximately 45% of V ˙O2 R for individuals who begin training with an aerobic capacity greater than 40 mL•min Ϫ1 •kg Ϫ1 .”
§ V ˙O2 reserve and the minimal intensity for improving cardiorespiratory fitness > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION · hedged
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The current analysis of threshold intensities is limited by the indirect means of estimating %V ˙O2 R values in previous studies.”
§ V ˙O2 reserve and the minimal intensity for improving cardiorespiratory fitness > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, a threshold was found only for groups with mean initial V ˙O2max values above 40 mL•min Ϫ1 •kg Ϫ1 , at approximately 45% V ˙O2 R.”
§ V ˙O2 reserve and the minimal intensity for improving cardiorespiratory fitness > RESULTS
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and 30% V ˙O2 R for lower fit subjects.”
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION · hedged
“This level of training may currently be considered the minimal effective intensity for this population of low fit subjects.”
§ V ˙O2 reserve and the minimal intensity for improving cardiorespiratory fitness > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION · hedged
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If there were no intensity effect, the 10 studies should not show a preponderance of results in the same direction.”
§ V ˙O2 reserve and the minimal intensity for improving cardiorespiratory fitness > RESULTS
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Thus, at intensities between rest and maximum, the discrepancy between %HRR or %V ˙O2 R units and %V ˙O2max units varies with both the fitness level of the individual and the specific intensity within the range between rest and maximum (33,34).”
§ V ˙O2 reserve and the minimal intensity for improving cardiorespiratory fitness > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [33] source
- Not matchedcites [34]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 13
- Probably not a substantial claim. 4
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The average V ˙O2max for all of these groups was 28.9 mL•min Ϫ1 •kg Ϫ1 .Translating the training intensity to %V ˙O2max units yields: [0.30(28.9Ϫ 3.5) ϩ 3.5]/28.9ϭ 38% of V ˙O2max .”
§ V ˙O2 reserve and the minimal intensity for improving cardiorespiratory fitness > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of the 10 remaining studies, 8 exhibited a nonsignificant greater improvement in the higherintensity group (and 7 of these 8 studies controlled the total amount of work between groups).”
§ V ˙O2 reserve and the minimal intensity for improving cardiorespiratory fitness > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Five of the 15 studies that compared two or more progressive intensities found a statistically greater improvement in the higher-intensity group (and three of these five studies controlled the total amount of work between groups).”
§ V ˙O2 reserve and the minimal intensity for improving cardiorespiratory fitness > RESULTS
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Groups with mean initial V ˙O2max values above 40 mL•min Ϫ1 •kg Ϫ1 exhibited an intensity-dependent response, in that those who exercised at intensities below 46% V ˙O2 R consistently demonstrated a lack of improvement, whereas those who exercised at intensities above this value consistently experienced improvements in V ˙O2max .”
§ V ˙O2 reserve and the minimal intensity for improving cardiorespiratory fitness > CONCLUSIONS
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No threshold intensity was apparent for less fit subject groups, as all studies using subjects with aerobic capacities less than 40 mL•min Ϫ1 •kg Ϫ1 found statistically significant increases in V ˙O2max , regardless of training intensity.”
§ V ˙O2 reserve and the minimal intensity for improving cardiorespiratory fitness > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The average V ˙O2max for all of these groups was 44.7 mL•min Ϫ1 •kg Ϫ1 .Translating the training intensity to %V ˙O2max units yields: [0.45(44.7 Ϫ 3.5) ϩ 3.5]/44.7 ϭ 49% of V ˙O2max .”
§ V ˙O2 reserve and the minimal intensity for improving cardiorespiratory fitness > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The American College of Sports Medicine has stated that aerobic training needs to occur at a minimum threshold intensity of 50% V ˙O2max for most healthy adults and at 40% V ˙O2max for those with a very low initial fitness.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · hedged
“In its 1990 position stand (1), the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) suggested a threshold intensity for training at 50% of HRR or V ˙O2max for most adults and 40% of HRR or V ˙O2max for individuals with a low initial level of aerobic fitness.”
§ V ˙O2 reserve and the minimal intensity for improving cardiorespiratory fitness > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · hedged
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, the three studies that reported no improvement in V ˙O2max after training (8,9,18) had only four to nine subjects per group.If a greater number of subjects had been tested, statistically significant improvements in V ˙O2max may have been attained.”
§ V ˙O2 reserve and the minimal intensity for improving cardiorespiratory fitness > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [8]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [9]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [18] source
hedgedconditionaln = 4- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A further conclusion is that higher intensities of training are generally more effective at improving V ˙O2max ; however, unconventionally vigorous exercise may not be recommended in consideration of injury, cardiovascular complications, and compliance issues.”
§ V ˙O2 reserve and the minimal intensity for improving cardiorespiratory fitness > CONCLUSIONS
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, only six subjects participated in the experiment, and only three of these trained at an intensity less than 70% of HRR.Moreover, the maximum oxygen consumption of the subjects was not measured.Thus, although the study serves as the foundation for later work, it did not firmly establish a threshold intensity.”
§ V ˙O2 reserve and the minimal intensity for improving cardiorespiratory fitness > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [23] source
plainn = 6- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Recent research has demonstrated that %HRR does not provide equivalent exercise intensities to %V ˙O2max but is instead equivalent to a percentage of the difference between maximum and resting oxygen consumption, i.e., to a percent-age of oxygen consumption reserve, %V ˙O2 R (33,34).”
§ V ˙O2 reserve and the minimal intensity for improving cardiorespiratory fitness > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [33] source
- Not matchedcites [34]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It would be accurate to simply state that training intensities of 30% or more of V ˙O2 R routinely resulted in improved aerobic capacity.”
§ V ˙O2 reserve and the minimal intensity for improving cardiorespiratory fitness > DISCUSSION
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rather than stating that 45% of V ˙O2 R represents a true threshold for this population, it might be more appropriate to simply state that exercise training above 45% of V ˙O2 R generally results in improved aerobic capacity.”
§ V ˙O2 reserve and the minimal intensity for improving cardiorespiratory fitness > DISCUSSION
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, present findings should be considered preliminary until they are confirmed or refuted by training studies that establish exercise intensity in %V ˙O2 R units.”
§ V ˙O2 reserve and the minimal intensity for improving cardiorespiratory fitness > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The current analysis has established that a reasonable level of support exists for a threshold at 45% of V ˙O2 R for subjects of a moderate-tohigh initial fitness level (defined here as Ͼ 40 mL•min Ϫ1 •kg Ϫ1 ), although it would be prudent to refer to this as an effective minimal training intensity rather than as a threshold per se.”
§ V ˙O2 reserve and the minimal intensity for improving cardiorespiratory fitness > DISCUSSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Heart rate reserve values are equivalent to oxygen consumption reserve values.
“Some studies reported the intensity as %HRR (2,3,12,14,24,30), and these were assumed to provide equivalent values in %V ˙O2 R units (33,34).”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The average resting oxygen consumption of the subjects was 3.5 mL/min/kg.
“in which the value 3.5 mL•min Ϫ1 •kg Ϫ1 was assumed to be the average resting V ˙O2 of the subjects.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“For deconditioned/inactive individuals or patients with CVD, the minimum or threshold intensity for improving CRF corresponds to ∼60%–70% of the highest HR achieved during peak or symptom-limited exercise testing [ 29 , 30 ].”
From Physical activity, cardiorespiratory fitness, and cardiovascular health: A clinical practice statement of the American Society for Preventive Cardiology Part II: Physical activity, cardiorespiratory fitness, minimum and goal intensities for exercise training, prescriptive methods, and special patient populations (2022) · cites this paper as [29]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“When developing exercise prescriptions for elderly and low-fit individuals, several studies established that using an RPE of 12-13 is an appropriate starting point for aerobic exercise prescription (30,31).”
From Ventilatory Threshold Related to VO2reserve, Heart Rate Reserve, and Rating of Perceived Exertion in a Large Varied Sample (2023) · cites this paper as [31]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Applicability of VT to exercise prescription is predicated on the well-established notion that moderate-intensity aerobic exercise at an RPE of 12-13 corresponds directly to VT and that above this intensity exercise becomes high intensity (31,32).”
From Ventilatory Threshold Related to VO2reserve, Heart Rate Reserve, and Rating of Perceived Exertion in a Large Varied Sample (2023) · cites this paper as [31]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Citations
Cites
Pollock, M. L., Gaesser, G. A., Butcher, J. D., Despr??s, J.-P., Dishman, R. K., Franklin, B. A., & Garber, C. E. (1998) · Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · doi:10.1097/00005768-199806000-00032 · Cited by 3,051
Self-citation(1957) · PubMed · Cited by 1,778
Type of activity: resistance, aerobic and leisure versus occupational physical activity
Howley, E. T. (2001) · Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · doi:10.1097/00005768-200106001-00005 · Cited by 722
Lee, I.-M. M., & Paffenbarger, R. S. (2000) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a010205 · Cited by 647
Wenger, H. A., & Bell, G. J. (1986) · Sports Medicine · doi:10.2165/00007256-198603050-00004 · Cited by 529
King, A. C. (1991) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1991.03470110081037 · Cited by 404
Women Walking for Health and Fitness
Duncan, J. J. (1991) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.266.23.3295 · Cited by 356
Endurance training in older men and women. I. Cardiovascular responses to exercise
Seals, D. R., Hagberg, J. M., Hurley, B. F., Ehsani, A. A., & Holloszy, J. O. (1984) · Journal of Applied Physiology · doi:10.1152/jappl.1984.57.4.1024 · Cited by 341
Blair, S. N., & Connelly, J. C. (1996) · Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport · doi:10.1080/02701367.1996.10607943 · Cited by 318
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- 1990, Med Sci Sports Exerc, 22, 265
- Burke, 1975, Res Quart, 46, 31
- Davies, 1971, Int Z Angew Physiol, 29, 299
- Devries, 1971, Geriatrics, 26, 94
- Edwards, 1974, Med Sci Sports, 6, 14
- Faria, 1970, Res Q, 41, 44
- Gaesser, 1984, Med Sci Sports Exerc, 16, 269
- Hagberg, 1986, Acta Med Scand, 711, 131
- Karvonen, 1957, Ann Med Exp Biol Fenn, 35, 307
- Pollock, 1998, Med Sci Sports Exerc, 30, 975
- Swain, 1994, Med Sci Sports Exerc, 26, 112
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Garber, C. E., Blissmer, B., Deschenes, M. R., Franklin, B. A., Lamonte, M. J., Lee, I.-M., Nieman, D. C., & Swain, D. P. (2011) · Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · doi:10.1249/mss.0b013e318213fefb · Cited by 9,319
Self-citationWinstein, C. J., Stein, J., Arena, R., Bates, B., Cherney, L. R., Cramer, S. C., Deruyter, F., Eng, J. J., Fisher, B., Harvey, R. L., et al. (2016) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/str.0000000000000098 · Cited by 3,293
Comparison of cardioprotective benefits of vigorous versus moderate intensity aerobic exercise
Swain, D. P., & Franklin, B. A. (2006) · The American Journal of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2005.07.130 · Cited by 660
Self-citationNutrition, physical activity, and cardiovascular disease: An update
IGNARRO, L., Balestrieri, M. L., & Claudio Napoli, A. (2006) · Cardiovascular Research · doi:10.1016/j.cardiores.2006.06.030 · Cited by 454
“The minimal training intensity threshold is about 45% of the heart rate reserve for patients with CHD [195], compared with 30% of the heart rate reserve for unfit healthy people [187].”
BackgroundOptimizing functional exercise capacity in the elderly surgical population
Carli, F., & Zavorsky, G. S. (2004) · Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care · doi:10.1097/00075197-200501000-00005 · Cited by 409
Metadata
- Authors
- SWAIN, D. P., & FRANKLIN, B. A.
- Affiliations
- Beaumont Health (US)
- ORCID
- FRANKLIN, BARRY A.
- Venue
- Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
- Published
- 2002-01
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 152-157
- ISSN
- 0195-9131 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2027535482
- Cited by
- 269
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 17
- FWCI
- 16.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- ODU Digital Commons (Old Dominion University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Physical Activity and Health
- Keywords
- exercise intensity thresholds, cardiorespiratory fitness, aerobic exercise, VO2max, exercise prescription, low-intensity training, heart rate reserve
- MeSH terms
- Adaptation, Physiological, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Heart Rate, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Oxygen Consumption, Physical Education and Training, Physical Fitness, Anaerobic Threshold, Program Evaluation, Exercise
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-05, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-05 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
