ArticleJournal of sports science & medicine2002
Physiological changes in sixth graders who trained to walk the Boston marathon.
Article in Journal of sports science & medicine, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess if supervised, low intensity training would improve aerobic capacity and body composition in sixth graders. Twelve sixth graders walk-trained at approximately 50% of their maximal heart rate, four to five days/week for 12 weeks; beginning with an average of 10 miles/week and increasing to about 27 miles/week (Experimental group [E]). Six subjects of similar age volunteered to be controls (Control group [C]). Baseline and post?training measurements included: height (cm), body weight (kg), sum of skinfolds at six sites (mm), and maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max; ml·kg(-1)·min(-1)). Three-day dietary records were also collected at pre-, mid-, and post-training to assess dietary changes that may have occurred during the study. There were significant increases (p < 0.05) from baseline to post-training in both groups in height and body weight. There was a significant interaction in the sum of skinfolds: E decreased 10.3% (p < 0.05) and C increased 2.3% (p > 0.05). There were no significant differences between groups in relative VO2max (ml·kg(-1)min(-1)) from baseline to post-training. C consumed significantly more total kilojoules (11,577 ± 3883 [C]; 7431 ± 2523 [E]) and more total grams of carbohydrate (392 ± 403 [C]; 227 ± 48 [E]) and fat (93 ± 97 [C]; 62 ± 29 [E]) than E, post-training. C also consumed significantly more total grams of protein than E pre-training (95 ± 99 [C]; 74 ± 21 [E]). In conclusion, walk-training elicited a significant decrease in sum of skinfolds with no change in relative VO2max. Furthermore, no dietary changes were observed in the experimental group as a result of the training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24748844PMC3979004What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.