RIAF Journal ISSN: 2953-6693 Vol – 4 No. 2, July 2026
37
Articles
Rodrigo Valdivia Quintero
Universidad Estatal de Milagro, Ecuador
rvaldiviaq@unemi.edu.ec
ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4222-6334
Bruno André Mieles Augurto
Universidad Estatal de Milagro, Ecuador
bmielesa@unemi.edu.ec
ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-6199-4077
David Alejandro Fernández Guevara
Universidad estatal de Milagro, Ecuador
dfernandezg@unemi.edu.ec
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0007-4326-1824
Kenya Paola Calva Oñate
Universidad Estatal de Milagro, Ecuador
kcalvao@unemi.edu.ec
ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-3396-7143
Abstract: This pre-experimental study evaluated
the effect of a 16-week physical training program
on the aerobic capacity of university faculty and
administrative staff. Thirteen subjects (6 men and
7 women) aged between 33 and 60 years
participated, selected intentionally. The Cooper
Test (12 minutes) was used, and maximum oxygen
consumption (VO₂ max) was calculated using the
standard formula VO₂ max = (d₁₂ − 504.9) / 44.73
at three time points: baseline (week 4), mid-term
(week 8), and final (week 16). The results showed
an average group increase of 27.6% in distance
covered (from 1,415 m to 1,805 m) and 43.0% in
VO₂ max. (from 20.33 to 29.07 ml/kg/min).
Women showed greater percentage increases in
both distance (+32.4%) and VO₂ max (+55.1%),
possibly related to their lower baseline values. The
results confirm that the program was effective in
improving cardiovascular endurance in this
population and highlight the need to implement
permanent physical activity programs in university
institutions.
Keywords: Aerobic capacity; Cooper test;
University physical training; Cardiovascular
endurance.
Evaluation of the impact of a Physical Training Program on the university
Community's Physical Capacity: A 16-Week Study
Rodrigo Valdivia Quintero
1
; Bruno André Mieles Augurto
2
; David Alejandro Fernández Guevara
3
& Kenya
Paola Calva Oñate
4
RIAF. International Journal of Physical Activity
Universidad de Guayaquil, Ecuador
Frequency: Semi-annual
Vol. 4, N°2, 2026
revista.riaf@ug.edu.ec
Received: April 6
th
, 2026
Approved: May 8
th
, 2026
Published: July 25
th
, 2026
URL: https://revistas.ug.edu.ec/index.php/riaf
DOI: https://doi.org/10.53591/riaf.v4i2.3242
RIAF Journal ISSN: 2953-6693 Vol – 4 No. 2, July 2026
38
Introduction
Physical activity is central to the maintenance of physical, mental, and organic health. However, in the
university environment, especially among faculty and administrative staff, sedentary behavior constitutes
a recurring problem. Long working hours, daily stress, and limited availability of time for physical activity
practice notably reduce physical capacity and increase the risk of developing chronic non-communicable
diseases such as obesity, arterial hypertension, and type 2 diabetes mellitus (World Health Organization
[WHO], 2020).
According to WHO guidelines (2020), adults should accumulate at least 150 to 300 minutes of
moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity — or 75 to 150 minutes of vigorous intensity — per week to
preserve their cardiovascular and metabolic health. Despite this recommendation, a considerable
proportion of university staff do not meet these minimum parameters, a situation aggravated by the
predominantly sedentary nature of their work duties (Gómez-López et al., 2022).
Studies conducted in Latin America show that faculty and administrative staff of higher education
institutions present insufficient levels of physical activity, with inactivity rates ranging between 55% and
70% of the university working population (González-Jurado et al., 2021; Martínez-Lemos et al., 2020).
This situation generates a negative impact not only on individual health but also on work productivity
and institutional climate.
Previous research has consistently demonstrated that interventions based on structured physical
training programs are capable of significantly improving key cardiovascular health indicators, including
maximum oxygen consumption (VO₂ max), aerobic endurance, and body composition. García-Hermoso
et al. (2022) reported average improvements of 15 to 30% in VO₂ max following 12 to 20-week
interventions in adult populations with characteristics similar to those of this research.
The Cooper Test, developed by Kenneth H. Cooper in 1968, is validated as a diagnostic tool for
assessing aerobic capacity in adult populations. Its applicability, low cost, and ease of administration make
it appropriate for university settings with limited resources (Cooper, 1968; Mayorga-Vega et al., 2016).
The formula VO₂ max = (d12 – 504.9) / 44.73 allows estimation of maximum oxygen consumption
from the distance covered in meters during the 12 minutes of the test, providing an objective and
reproducible measure of aerobic status.
RIAF Journal ISSN: 2953-6693 Vol – 4 No. 2, July 2026
39
Several studies have documented that,
although university faculty recognize the benefits
of regular physical activity, they present
insufficient levels of practice and perceive greater
barriers than other university groups (Arboleda
Serna et al., 2016). This paradox between
knowledge and behavior — where practice is
sporadic and lacks structured progression —
limits the attainment of physiological adaptations
derived from systematic training, which justifies
the design of supervised institutional
interventions (González Reyes et al., 2019).
The program was designed applying the
foundations that the specialized literature in
exercise physiology and training methodology has
consolidated for the adult population. Below,
based on the referenced authors, it is explained
why a distribution of three aerobic and two
strength sessions per microcycle was chosen, and
why the methods that integrate the planning were
selected.
Distribution 3 aerobic / 2 strength per
Microcycle
According to Wilmore and Costill (2007),
three weekly aerobic sessions constitute the
minimum frequency to produce measurable
improvements in VO₂ max in adults aged 33 to
60 years. Along the same lines, Garber et al.
(2011) recommend 3 to 5 days/week of
moderate-vigorous aerobic exercise for increasing
maximum oxygen consumption. Considering
these criteria, the program establishes three
aerobic sessions over four available days,
respecting the recovery capacity of the age group
without reducing the cardiorespiratory stimulus.
Regarding the strength component, Siff and
Verkhoshansky (2000) point out that two weekly
sessions curb sarcopenia, improve bone density,
and reduce locomotor metabolic cost, a criterion
coincident with that of Kraemer and Ratamess
(2004), who establish this minimum to maintain
and develop strength in adults.
Strength is not conceived as a secondary
component: its effect on movement economy
elevates functional VO₂ max for the same
external load (Paavolainen et al., 1999).
The weekly sequence Aerobic-Strength-
Aerobic-Strength-Aerobic (A-S-A-S-A) proposed
by Forteza de la Rosa and Ramírez Farto (2005)
applies the recovery principle, which requires at
least 48 hours between sessions of the same type.
Turner and Comfort (2018) point out that
concurrent training improves VO₂ max and body
composition to a greater extent than each
modality separately. The sequence also avoids
acute aerobic-strength interference (Docherty &
Sporer, 2000) and ensures that each capacity has
the necessary supercompensation time.
Periodization in Mesocycles
Verkhoshansky (1988) highlights that block
periodization takes advantage of the residual
training from each phase. Bompa & Haff (2009)
establish that blocks of 4 to 6 weeks per
mesocycle in conditioning programs for adults
are adequate for managing fatigue and avoiding
stagnation. The macrocycle structure follows
Verkhoshansky's proposal: Accumulation (weeks
1-4) → Advanced Accumulation (5-8) →
Transformation (9-12) → Realization (13-16),
with unloading weeks in weeks 4, 8, and 12.
Selection of Training Methods
In the field of sport and physical culture, the
method constitutes one of the structural elements
of the training process. Authors such as Bompa
& Haff (2009) and Matveyev (1977) agree in
pointing it out as the means through which the
coach organizes and directs the athlete's activity
toward achieving previously defined objectives.
Forteza de la Rosa and Ramírez Farto (2005) also
conceive them as a pedagogical category that
articulates contents, means, and the coach-athlete
relationship in a conscious direction.
RIAF Journal ISSN: 2953-6693 Vol – 4 No. 2, July 2026
40
The objective of the present study is to
evaluate the impact of a physical training program
on the development of aerobic capacity of faculty
and administrative staff at the Universidad Estatal
de Milagro.
Material and Method
The design used is experimental in its pre-
experimental modality with a single group, with
an explanatory scope and a causal relationship
that expresses the incidence of the independent
variable (Physical training program) on the
dependent variable (Aerobic capacity) of the
study subjects. The study has a quantitative
approach with a longitudinal orientation with
three measurements — baseline (week 4), mid-
term (week 8), and final (week 16) — to verify
changes in cardiovascular endurance and
maximum oxygen consumption (VO₂ max) in the
studied sample.
Participants
The reference population consisted of 48
faculty and administrative staff who attended the
program. The intentional sample included 13
participants (6 men and 7 women). As selection
criteria, subjects between 35 and 60 years of age
(M = 44.69, SD = 8.12), in good health at the time
of measurements, and with frequent attendance
at training sessions were chosen.
The sample consisted of 13 participants: 6
men (46.2%) and 7 women (53.8%), with ages
ranging between 33 and 60 years (M = 44.69, SD
= 8.12). The average initial body weight was 72.5
kg (range: 57-98 kg). No participant reported
previous sports experience prior to the start of
the program, which reinforces the comparability
of the data and the internal validity of the study.
Inclusion criteria were: no medical restrictions for
physical exercise practice, availability to
participate in training sessions and all three
evaluations, and signing of informed consent.
Subjects diagnosed with cardiovascular diseases
or medical contraindications for physical exercise,
attendance below 80% of program sessions, and
musculoskeletal injuries that prevented
performing the tests were excluded.
Instruments
The Cooper Test. It was used to measure
aerobic endurance where participants covered the
greatest possible distance in 12 minutes on a
standardized 400-meter athletic track, recording
the meters covered at the end of the established
time. Environmental conditions were controlled
(temperature between 18°C and 22°C, flat
surface, morning schedule). The standard Cooper
formula (1968) applicable to men and women was
used: VO₂ max = (d12 – 504.9) / 44.73, where
d12 corresponds to the distance covered in
meters during the 12 minutes of the test. The
result is expressed in ml/kg/min. Additionally,
for greater precision by gender, differentiated
formulas were considered:
• Men: VO₂ max = (22.351 × d₁₂) − 11.288
• Women: VO₂ max = (22.351 × d₁₂) −
8.286
Normative Classification Tables
VO₂ max results were classified according to
international normative tables stratified by sex
and age group (ACSM, 2021), with the following
categories: Very Poor/Poor, Fair/Average,
Good, and Excellent.
RIAF Journal ISSN: 2953-6693 Vol – 4 No. 2, July 2026
41
Table 1.
Normative data for VO₂ max (ml/kg/min) by sex and age group.
Age Group
Very Poor
Poor
Fair
(average)
Good
Excellent
Men
20–29 years
< 33
33–36
37–41
42–50
> 50
30–39 years
< 29
29–32
33–37
38–46
> 46
40–49 years
< 25
25–28
29–33
34–42
> 42
50–59 years
< 21
21–24
25–29
30–38
> 38
60–69 years
< 18
18–21
22–25
26–34
> 34
≥ 70 years
< 15
15–18
19–22
23–30
> 30
Women
20–29 years
< 27
27–30
31–35
36–43
> 43
30–39 years
< 24
24–27
28–31
32–39
> 39
40–49 years
< 21
21–24
25–28
29–36
> 36
50–59 years
< 18
18–21
22–25
26–32
> 32
60–69 years
< 15
15–17
18–21
22–29
> 29
≥ 70 years
< 13
13–15
16–18
19–25
> 25
Note:
VO₂ max values (ml/kg/min) correspond to the normative categories of cardiorespiratory fitness
established by the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) in its Guidelines for Exercise Testing
and Prescription (11th ed.) and complemented with normative data from the Cooper Institute, derived
from the Fitness Registry and the Importance of Exercise National Database (FRIEND). The cutoff
points reflect population percentiles adjusted by sex and age group.
To evaluate the impact of a 16-week physical
training program on the aerobic capacity of
faculty and administrative staff of a university,
through the application of the Cooper Test and
VO₂ max measurement at three evaluation time
points (week 4, week 8, and week 16).
Three evaluations were conducted with the
Cooper Test: at the end of the first conditioning
mesocycle (week 4, Monday), at the midpoint of
the program (week 8, Wednesday), and at the
conclusion of the program (week 16,
Wednesday). Each evaluation followed a
standardized protocol: 15-minute warm-up, 12-
minute test execution, and active recovery. The
training program was supervised by professionals
in the field during weeks 1 through 16.
Statistical Analysis
Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics
(arithmetic mean, standard deviation, and ranges)
to characterize the sample and results by
evaluation and gender.
Procedures
The baseline assessment was conducted at the
end of the first conditioning phase (week 4) to
ensure that participants had the minimum
preparation necessary to correctly perform the
test. The absence of a control group is justified by
the ethical and practical restrictions inherent to
the university institutional context.
Based on the described context and available
evidence, the impact of a physical training
program on the university community was
evaluated using validated diagnostic instruments.
The study used the Cooper Test and VO₂ max
measurement at three points of the program
(week 4, week 8, and week 16) to quantify changes
in aerobic capacity of university faculty and
administrative staff. The results obtained will
provide local scientific evidence that can guide
the design and implementation of permanent
physical activity programs in higher education
institutions.
RIAF Journal ISSN: 2953-6693 Vol – 4 No. 2, July 2026
42
a frequency of 5 weekly sessions (3 aerobic and 2
strength) of 60 minutes each.
The fixed distribution per microcycle was:
Monday = Aerobic | Tuesday = Strength |
Wednesday = Aerobic | Thursday = Strength |
Friday = Aerobic. The program was structured in
four progressive mesocycles. Below, the aerobic
training methods (Table 1) and the strength work
phases (Table 2) are presented.
Student's T-test for related samples (pre-post)
was applied to evaluate the statistical significance
of the observed changes, establishing a
significance level of α = 0.05. Percentage
improvements between evaluations were also
calculated.
Ethical Considerations
Results
The program was developed over 16 weeks with
Table 2.
Selected aerobic training methods for the program
Method
Reference and foundations
Intensity
Weeks of
Application
Extensive
continuous
Wilmore & Costill: develops
mitochondrial efficiency and
oxidative base. Haskell et al. (2007):
moderate-intensity aerobic activity
as the axis of conditioning in adults.
Forteza de la Rosa: progression
principle. Increase no greater than 5-
10% of weekly volume in adults >40
years. McArdle et al. (2015):
progressive overload is the central
mechanism of aerobic adaptation.
50-65% HR
max RPE 11-
13
Weeks 1-4 (base), 8, 12,
15-16 (recovery and taper)
Progressive
increase of
loads
Verkhoshansky: chaining sections of
different intensity without pause
trains tolerance to sustained effort
and prepares the cardiovascular
system for higher intensities without
the sudden impact of intervals.
Variable
according to
phase
Throughout the 16 weeks.
Expressed in duration (+5
min/week), intensity (+3-
5%) or number of
intervals.
Standard
chain
exercise
Turner & Comfort: 75-85% HR max
intervals with active recovery
generate the most consistent
stimulus on VO₂ max. Helgerud et
al. (2007): 4 × 4 min at 90-95% HR
max increases VO₂ max by 7.2% in
8 weeks.
55-72% HR
max
Weeks 2-3 (intro), 5-7
(development), 15 (taper).
Base structure: jogging →
active walking → jogging.
Extensive
interval
Wilmore & Costill: 5-10 min
intervals at 80-85% HR max keep
the body in the zone of maximum
cardiorespiratory demand longer
than short intervals. Billat (2001):
long sections at 100% VO₂ max
optimize time in zone.
72-86% HR
max (work)
Introduction Week 6.
Development Weeks 9-11,
13-14. Progression: first
increase repetitions, then
intensity.
Long-section
interval
80-86% HR max (work)
Weeks 10-11
(development),
13-15
(realization
and taper).
Progression:
from 4×5 min
(Week 10) to
3×10 min
(Week 13).
RIAF Journal ISSN: 2953-6693 Vol – 4 No. 2, July 2026
43
Fartlek
Forteza de la Rosa: variety principle.
Fartlek forces the cardiovascular
system to respond to non-
standardized stimuli, avoids stagnant
adaptation, and improves adherence
in non-athlete adults. Billat (2001):
fartlek produces VO₂ responses
similar to formalized intervals.
Variable
Weeks 5-15 (one
session/week, Friday).
Each mesocycle increases
the duration or intensity of
fast sections.
Note: HR max = maximum heart rate; RPE = rate of perceived exertion (Borg 6-20). Intensities
adjusted to the age range of the sample (33-60 years).
Table 3.
Strength work phases incorporated into the program as a complement to the aerobic component
Phase
Weeks
Series x
Reps
Load (%
1RM)
Rest
Reference
Anatomical
adaptation
1-4
3x15-20
40-50%
60-90 seg
Siff & Verkhoshansky;
Kraemer & Ratamess
(2004)
Functional
hypertrophy
5-8
4x10-12
55-65%
60-75 seg
Bompa & Haff (2009);
ACSM (2009)
Strength
endurance
9-12
4x8-10
65-75%
90-120
seg
Turner & Comfort; Siff
& Verkhoshansky
Maintenance
and
Consolidation
13-16
3x12-15
50-65%
60-75 seg
Verkhoshansky;
Kraemer & Ratamess
(2004)
Note: 1RM = one repetition maximum. Load progression according to the principle of progressive
overload (ACSM, 2009; Bompa & Haff, 2009).
Table 3 presents the synthetic scheme of the 16-week program, organized in four mesocycles.
Table 4.
Summary of the training program — 16 weeks
Mesocycle
Weeks
Objective
Aerobic methods
Strength load
1. Initiation / aerobic
base
1-4
Conditioning,
cardiovascular
adaptation
Extensive
continuous
Anatomical
adaptation (40–55%
1RM, 2x12–15)
2. Resistance
development
5-8
Increase VO₂ Max,
effort tolerance
Extensive
continuous +
Variable continuous
(Fartlek)
Functional
hypertrophy (60–
70% 1RM, 3x10–12)
3. Intensification /
aerobic capacity
9-12
Improvement of
aerobic threshold,
metabolic efficiency
Variable continuous
+ Extensive interval
Strength-endurance
(60–70% 1RM,
3x12–15)
4. Consolidation and
transfer
13-16
Maintenance of
adaptations,
functional
integration
Extensive interval +
Extensive
continuous
(recovery)
Strength-endurance
(maintenance, 50–
60% 1RM)
Note: 1RM = one repetition maximum. The fixed weekly distribution was: Monday/Wednesday/Friday
= aerobic; Tuesday/Thursday = strength.
RIAF Journal ISSN: 2953-6693 Vol – 4 No. 2, July 2026
44
• Mesocycle 1 — Initiation and aerobic base
(weeks 1-4): general conditioning through
extensive continuous methods, with initial
evaluation via Cooper Test at the end (week
4, Monday).
• Mesocycle 2 — Aerobic development
(weeks 5-8): progressive increase of
intensity, incorporation of fartlek and
extensive intervals. Mid-term evaluation via
Cooper Test (week 8, Wednesday).
• Mesocycle 3 — Intensification and VO₂
max (weeks 9-12): specific work with
extensive intervals and long-section
intervals to maximize time in the high
cardiorespiratory demand zone.
• Mesocycle 4 — Realization and
consolidation (weeks 13-
16): consolidation of adaptations with
progressive taper. Final evaluation via
Cooper Test (week 16, Wednesday).
Cooper Test Results — Baseline (Week 4)
Table 4 presents the individual results of the
first test, applied at the end of the conditioning
mesocycle (week 4). The average group distance
was 1,415 m and the average VO₂ max was 20.33
ml/kg/min. Eight of the 13 participants (61.5%)
were classified in the "Very Poor" category,
evidencing an initial state of deficient aerobic
condition.
Table 5.
Individual results — First Cooper Test (Baseline, Week 4)
N°
Sex
Weight
(kg)
Age
Meters
covered
VO₂ Max
(ml/kg/min)
Physical
Condition
1
H
98
42
1,500
22.24
Very Poor
2
F
70
45
1,100
13.30
Very Poor
3
F
68
44
1,350
18.89
Very Poor
4
H
87
44
1,200
15.54
Very Poor
5
F
63
54
1,500
22.24
Fair
6
F
63
35
1,400
20.01
Very Poor
7
F
60
53
1,100
13.30
Very Poor
8
H
94
45
1,900
31.19
Fair
9
H
77
57
1,570
23.81
Poor
10
H
88
44
1,780
28.50
Fair
11
F
61
60
1,100
13.30
Vey Poor
12
F
57
41
1,000
11.06
Very Poor
13
H
85
33
1,890
30.97
Poor
Note: F = female, M = male; VO₂ Max = maximum oxygen consumption (ml/kg/min),
estimated from the distance covered in the Cooper Test (Cooper, 1968). Classification according
to normative tables (ACSM, 2021).
Cooper Test Results — Mid-term (Week 8)
Table 5 shows the results obtained in the mid-term evaluation (week 8). The average distance increased
to 1,631 m (+15.3% compared to baseline) and the average VO₂ max increased to 25.17 ml/kg/min
(+23.8%). A generalized improvement in physical condition was recorded: nine participants migrated to
the "Fair" category, while two remained in "Very Poor"; this evidences the early effect of progressive
training.
RIAF Journal ISSN: 2953-6693 Vol – 4 No. 2, July 2026
45
Table 6.
Individual results — Second Cooper Test (Mid-term, Week 8)
N°
Sex
Weight(kg)
Age
Meters
covered
VO₂ Max
(ml/kg/min)
Physical
Condition
1
H
95
42
1,700
26.72
Fair
2
F
67
45
1,500
22.24
Fair
3
F
63
44
1,650
25.60
Fair
4
H
84
44
1,650
25.60
Poor
5
F
61
54
1,500
22.24
Fair
6
F
60
35
1,650
25.60
Poor
7
F
59
53
1,500
22.24
Fair
8
H
92
45
2,050
34.54
Fair
9
H
76
57
1,700
26.72
Fair
10
H
85
44
1,900
31.19
Fair
11
F
60
60
1,200
15.54
Very Poor
12
F
57
41
1,200
15.54
Very Poor
13
H
83
33
2,000
33.42
Poor
Note: F = female, M = male; VO₂ Max = maximum oxygen consumption (ml/kg/min),
estimated through the Cooper Test (Cooper, 1968). Classification according to normative tables
(ACSM, 2021).
Cooper Test Results — Final (Week 16)
Table 6 presents the final results (week 16). The average group distance reached 1,805 m (+27.6%
compared to baseline) and the average VO₂ max stood at 29.07 ml/kg/min (+43.0%). 76.9% of
participants improved their physical condition category: three reached the "Good" category, seven the
"Fair" category, and three remained in "Poor." The case of Byron Piedra Arévalo stands out, who reached
the "Excellent" category with a VO₂ max of 42.81 ml/kg/min.
Table 7.
Individual results — Third Cooper Test (Final, Week 16)
N°
Sex
Weight
(kg)
Age
Meters
covered
VO₂ Max
(ml/kg/min)
Physical
Condition
1
M
93
42
2,050
34.54
Fair
2
F
65
45
1,800
28.95
Fair
3
F
61
44
1,700
26.71
Fair
4
M
83
44
1,950
32.31
Fair
5
F
59
54
1,700
26.71
Fair
6
F
58
35
1,960
32.53
Good
7
F
59
53
1,550
23.36
Fair
8
M
92
45
2,420
42.81
Excellent
9
M
76
57
1,620
24.93
Fair
10
M
84
44
2,100
35.66
Good
11
F
60
60
1,300
17.77
Poor
12
F
57
41
1,300
17.77
Very Poor
13
M
82
33
2,020
33.87
Poor
Note: F
= female, M = male; VO₂ Max = maximum oxygen consumption (ml/kg/min), estimated
through the Cooper Test (Cooper, 1968). Classification according to normative tables (ACSM, 2021).
RIAF Journal ISSN: 2953-6693 Vol – 4 No. 2, July 2026
46
Group Progression in the Three Evaluations
Table 7 summarizes the group evolution of aerobic indicators throughout the program. A progressive
and sustained increase is observed in both distance covered and VO₂ max, with the largest percentage
jump recorded between the baseline and mid-term evaluation (+23.8%), reflecting the early adaptive
response to progressive aerobic stimulation.
Table 8.
Group progression — Average Distance and VO₂ Max in the three evaluations
Evaluation
Average Distance
(m)
Average VO₂ Max
(ml/kg/min)
VO₂ Increase
(%)
Baseline (Week
4)
1,415
20.33
—
Mid-term (Week
8)
1,631
25.17
+23.8%
Final (Week 16)
1,805
29.07
+43.0%
Note:
Δ = percentage variation compared to baseline (week 4); VO₂ Max expressed in ml/kg/min
Figure 1. Progression of Average Distance Covered
Figure 1. Progression of Average Distance Covered (Cooper Test, 12 min) in the three evaluations
(weeks 4, 8, and 16). Values correspond to group mean (n = 13).
RIAF Journal ISSN: 2953-6693 Vol – 4 No. 2, July 2026
47
Figure 2 — Progression of Average VO₂ Max
Figure 2. Evolution of the group average VO₂ max (ml/kg/min) across the three evaluations. The
curve reflects the adaptive response to progressive training.
Comparative Analysis by Gender
Table 8 presents the comparison of results by gender. Both groups significantly improved their aerobic
indicators; however, women registered higher percentage increases, which is consistent with their lower
baseline physical condition level. This difference does not necessarily imply a greater capacity for
physiological adaptation but rather reflects the effect of the lower starting point (known as the "low floor"
phenomenon).
Table 9.
Comparison by gender — Distance and VO₂ Max (Baseline vs. Final)
Gender
Initial Dist.
(m)
Final Dist. (m)
Δ Dist.
(%)
Initial VO₂
Final VO₂
Δ VO₂
(%)
Men
1,640
2,027
+23.6%
25.38
34.02
+34.0%
Women
1,221
1,616
+32.4%
16.01
24.83
+55.1%
Note: Δ Dist. = percentage variation of distance covered; Δ VO₂ = percentage variation of maximum
oxygen consumption (ml/kg/min) compared to baseline.
Figure 3. Comparison of Average Distance Covered by Gender (Baseline vs. Final)
Figure 3. Comparison of the average distance traveled by gender between the initial and final
assessments. Men exhibited higher absolute values, while women showed a greater percentage of
improvement.
RIAF Journal ISSN: 2953-6693 Vol – 4 No. 2, July 2026
48
Figure 4 — Comparison of VO₂ Max by Gender.
Figure 4. Comparison of the average VO₂ Max by gender between the initial and final assessments.
Men exhibited higher absolute values, while women showed a greater percentage of improvement.
Statistical Analysis
The analysis using Student's T-test for related
samples (pretest-posttest) showed a statistically
significant increase in the distance covered during
the Cooper Test (t (12) = −8.74, p < 0.001), with
an average improvement of 391 meters (95% CI:
259–523 m).
Likewise, the average VO₂ max increased
from 20.33 ± 6.93 ml/kg/min to 29.07 ± 7.21
ml/kg/min (difference = 8.74 ml/kg/min, p <
0.001), representing an increase of 43.0%. The
effect size calculated using Cohen's d was large (d
= 1.79), indicating a clinically relevant response to
the training program.
RIAF Journal ISSN: 2953-6693 Vol – 4 No. 2, July 2026
49
Discussion
This 16-week aerobic and strength training
program produced significant and clinically
relevant improvements in the aerobic capacity of
participants. The average increase of 43.0% in
VO₂ max coincides with what has been reported
in similar interventions for untrained adult
populations, ranging between 15% and 40%
(García-Hermoso et al., 2022; Warburton et al.,
2006).
The progression in four mesocycles —
initiation, development, intensification, and
realization — allowed a gradual adaptation of the
cardiovascular system, minimizing the risk of
injury and dropout. The greatest percentage gain
in VO₂ max was recorded between the first and
second evaluations (+23.8%), reflecting the early
adaptive response to structured aerobic training.
The 16-week duration proved adequate to
consolidate adaptations of clinically relevant
magnitude in this population.
The greater percentage of improvement
observed in women (+55.1% in VO₂ max)
compared to men (+34.0%) can be explained by
the greater physiological plasticity associated with
lower baseline values, in line with the training
principle of progressive overload and the "low
floor" phenomenon documented in the literature
(Haskell et al., 2007). Nevertheless, men achieved
higher absolute VO₂ max values in all
evaluations, which agrees with inherent
physiological gender differences.
Adherence was high: all participants
completed more than 80% of the sessions, which
is key to the validity of the results and to
sustaining long-term improvements. This data
suggests that professional supervision and group
work were relevant motivating factors.
As limitations and perspectives of the study,
the following are determined: establishing
permanent and institutional physical activity
programs for university staff, with periodic
monitoring using the Cooper Test and VO₂
max at least twice a year; designing personalized
training plans according to the initial physical
condition level and individual characteristics (age,
gender, health status) to maximize benefits;
incorporating strength and flexibility sessions as a
complement to aerobic work to obtain
comprehensive benefits in the musculoskeletal
health of staff; replicating the study with a larger
sample, including a control group, to increase
internal validity and generalizability of results;
developing institutional awareness campaigns
about the benefits of physical activity, especially
focused on staff with higher levels of sedentary
behavior; exploring the association between
improvements in physical condition and variables
of work well-being such as productivity,
absenteeism, and perceived quality of life.
Conclusions
The 16-week aerobic and strength training
program was effective in improving the aerobic
capacity of university faculty and administrative
staff:
• The average group VO₂ max increased by
43.0% (from 20.33 to 29.07 ml/kg/min),
with statistically significant differences (p
< 0.001) and large effect size (Cohen's d =
1.79).
• The average distance covered in the
Cooper Test increased by 27.6% (from
1,415 m to 1,805 m), evidencing a
substantial improvement in aerobic
endurance.
• 76.9% of participants improved their
physical condition category, with three
participants reaching the "Good" category
at the end of the program.
• Women presented greater percentage
increases (+55.1% in VO₂ max), while
men achieved higher absolute values, in
accordance with physiological differences
between genders.
RIAF Journal ISSN: 2953-6693 Vol – 4 No. 2, July 2026
50
• Adherence greater than 80% in all
participants validates the viability and
acceptability of the program in the
university context.
• The results indicate the importance of
implementing permanent physical activity
programs in educational institutions to
reduce sedentary behavior and promote
staff health.
References
American College of Sports Medicine. (2009).
American College of Sports Medicine position
stand. Progression models in resistance
training for healthy adults. Medicine & Science
in Sports & Exercise, 41(3), 687-708.
https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e318191
5670
American College of Sports Medicine. (2021).
ACSM's guidelines for exercise testing and
prescription (11.ª ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
Arboleda Serna, V. H., Arango Vélez, E. F., &
Feito, Y. (2016). Actividad física y
percepciones de beneficios y barreras en una
universidad colombiana. Retos, 30, 160–165.
https://doi.org/10.47197/retos.v0i30.35175
Billat, V. L. (2001). Interval training for
performance: A scientific and empirical
practice. Special recommendations for middle-
and long-distance running. Part I: Aerobic
interval training. Sports Medicine, 31(1), 13-
31. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-
200131010-00002
Bompa, T., & Haff, G. G. (2009). Periodization:
Theory and methodology of training (5.ª ed.).
Human Kinetics.
Cooper, K. H. (1968). A means of assessing
maximal oxygen intake: Correlation between
field and treadmill testing. JAMA, 203(3), 201-
204.https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1968.031400
30033008
Docherty, D., & Sporer, B. (2000). A proposed
model for examining the interference
phenomenon between concurrent aerobic and
strength training. Sports Medicine, 30(6), 385-
394. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-
200030060-00001
Forteza de la Rosa, A., & Ramírez Farto, E.
(2005). Teoría, metodología y planificación del
entrenamiento deportivo: De lo ortodoxo a lo
contemporáneo. Wanceulen Editorial.
Garber, C. E., Blissmer, B., Deschenes, M. R.,
Franklin, B. A., Lamonte, M. J., Lee, I. M.,
Nieman, D. C., & Swain, D. P. (2011).
American College of Sports Medicine position
stand. Quantity and quality of exercise for
developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory,
musculoskeletal, and neuromotor fitness in
apparently healthy adults: Guidance for
prescribing exercise. Medicine & Science in
Sports & Exercise, 43(7), 1334-1359.
https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e318213
fefb
García-Hermoso, A., Ramírez-Vélez, R., Sáez de
Asteasu, M. L., Martínez-Velilla, N., Zambom-
Ferraresi, F., Izquierdo, M., & Cadore, E. L.
(2022). Safety and effectiveness of long-term
exercise interventions in older adults: A
systematic review and meta-analysis of
randomized controlled trials. Sports Medicine,
52(6), 1385-1396.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-022-01649-
0
Gómez-López, M., Granero-Gallegos, A.,
Isorna-Folgar, M., Arbinaga-Ibarzábal, F., &
Rodríguez-García, P. L. (2022). Sedentary
behavior and physical activity level in
university professors: Associated factors and
barriers. Frontiers in Public Health, 10,
963082.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.963082
González-Jurado, J. A., Martín-Tamayo, I., &
Campos-Mesa, M. C. (2021). Physical activity
RIAF Journal ISSN: 2953-6693 Vol – 4 No. 2, July 2026
51
habits and sedentary behaviors of non-
physical education university professors.
International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 18(11), 5757.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18115757
González Reyes, Y., Ríos Guarango, P. A.,
Parreño Urquizo, Á. F., Chávez Hernández, J.
P., Yaulema Brito, L. P., & Guacho Tixi, M. E.
(2019). Influencia de las actividades físicas en
la autoestima de docentes universitarios:
efectos a corto tiempo. Revista Cubana de
Investigaciones Biomédicas, 37(4). (Revista
Scielo, acceso abierto)
Haskell, W. L., Lee, I. M., Pate, R. R., Powell, K.
E., Blair, S. N., Franklin, B. A., Macera, C. A.,
Heath, G. W., Thompson, P. D., & Bauman,
A. (2007). Physical activity and public health:
Updated recommendation for adults from the
American College of Sports Medicine and the
American Heart Association. Medicine &
Science in Sports & Exercise, 39(8), 1423-
1434.
https://doi.org/10.1249/mss.0b013e3180616
b27
Helgerud, J., Høydal, K., Wang, E., Karlsen, T.,
Berg, P., Bjerkaas, M., Simonsen, T., Helgesen,
C., Hjorth, N., Bach, R., & Hoff, J. (2007).
Aerobic high-intensity intervals improve
VO2max more than moderate training.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise,
39(4), 665-671.
https://doi.org/10.1249/mss.0b013e3180304
570
Kraemer, W. J., & Ratamess, N. A. (2004).
Fundamentals of resistance training:
Progression and exercise prescription.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise,
36(4), 674-688.
https://doi.org/10.1249/01.MSS.000012194
5.36635.61
Martínez-Lemos, R. I., Puig-Ribera, A., & García-
García, O. (2020). Perceived barriers to
physical activity and related factors in Spanish
university employees. Journal of Sports
dgfffsgf
Science & Medicine, 19(1), 56-67.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/R_Iva
n_Martinez-
Lemos/publication/272878626_Perceived_B
arriers_to_Physical_Activity_and_Related_Fa
ctors_in_Spanish_University_Students/links/
555d91d908ae6f4dcc8c3b8f/Perceived-
Barriers-to-Physical-Activity-and-Related-
Factors-in-Spanish-University-Students.pdf
Mayorga-Vega, D., Merino-Marban, R., &
Viciana, J. (2016). Criterion-related validity of
physical fitness tests in youth: A systematic
review. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine,
13(1), 1-14.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=
10.1371/journal.pone.0151671
McArdle, W. D., Katch, F. I., & Katch, V. L.
(2015). Exercise physiology: Nutrition, energy,
and human performance (8.ª ed.). Wolters
Kluwer Health / Lippincott Williams &
Wilkins.
Organización Mundial de la Salud. (2020).
Directrices de la OMS sobre actividad física y
comportamiento sedentario. OMS.
https://www.who.int/es/publications/i/item
/9789240014886
Paavolainen, L., Häkkinen, K., Hämäläinen, I.,
Nummela, A., & Rusko, H. (1999). Explosive-
strength training improves 5-km running time
by improving running economy and muscle
power. Journal of Applied Physiology, 86(5),
1527-1533.
https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1999.86.5.152
7
Siff, M. C., & Verkhoshansky, Y. V. (2000).
Supertraining (6.ª ed.). Supertraining Institute.
Turner, A., & Comfort, P. (Eds.). (2018).
Advanced strength and conditioning: An
evidence-based approach. Routledge.
Verkhoshansky, Y. V. (1988). Fundamentos del
entrenamiento especial de fuerza en el
deporte. Comité Olímpico Español.
Warburton, D. E. R., Nicol, C. W., & Bredin, S.
S. D. (2006). Health benefits of physical
fdgfgfd
RIAF Journal ISSN: 2953-6693 Vol – 4 No. 2, July 2026
52
activity: The evidence. CMAJ: Canadian
Medical Association Journal, 174(6), 801-809.
https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.051351
Wilmore, J. H., & Costill, D. L. (2007). Fisiología
del esfuerzo y del deporte (6.ª ed.). Paidotribo.
American College of Sports Medicine. (2022).
ACSM's guidelines for exercise testing and
prescription (11.ª ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
Kaminsky, L. A., Arena, R., Beckie, T. M.,
Brubaker, P. H., Church, T. S., Forman, D. E.,
Franklin, B. A., Gulati, M., Myers, J., Patel, M.
J., Pina, I. L., Weintraub, W. S., & Williams, M.
A. (2013). The importance of
cardiorespiratory fitness in the United States:
The need for a national registry. A policy
statement from the American Heart
Association. Circulation, 127(5), 652–662.
https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0b013e31827ee
100
The Cooper Institute. (2023). Physical fitness
assessments and norms for adults and law
enforcement (10.ª ed.). The Cooper Institute.
Declaration of Conflicts of Interest: The
authors show no conflicts of interest in the
publication of their research results according to
the codes of the RIAF Journal.
Authors' Participation:
Rodrigo Valdivia Quintero: Participated in
the development of the instruments, applied and
processed the tests. Developed the training
program.
Bruno André Mieles Augurto: Carried out
the theoretical systematization of the research
variables and constructed the bibliographic
references in APA Standards.
David Alejandro Fernández
Guevara: Participated in the measurements and
control of the applied tests and in the statistical
processing of the data.
Kenya Paola Calva Oñate: Participated as an
assistant in the application of the tests and
developed the discussion and conclusions of the
research