Comparison of strength development with resistance training and combined exercise training in type 2 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resistance training has been shown to increase strength in type 2 diabetes; however, it is unclear if combining resistance and aerobic training (A + R) impedes strength development compared with resistance training only (R). The purpose of this study was to compare changes in strength with A + R vs R in individuals with type 2 diabetes. We evaluated monthly workload increments in participants from the Diabetes Aerobic and Resistance Exercise clinical trial. Muscular strength was assessed through training volumes and as the eight repetition maximum (8-RM) at 0, 3, and 6 months. Both groups increased their upper and lower body volumes monthly for 6 months. The relative increase in upper body workload in R was significantly greater than A + R at 4 months (161 ± 11% vs 127 ± 11%, P = 0.009) and at 6 months of training (177 ± 11% vs 132 ± 11%, P = 0.008). Both groups had improvements in 8-RM workloads at 3 and 6 months. The resistance training group had a significantly greater improvement in 8-RM on the leg press at 6 months compared with A + R (80 ± 11% vs 58 ± 8%, P = 0.045). Both R and A + R improved strength with a 6-month training program; however, increases in strength may be greater with resistance training alone compared with performing both aerobic and resistance training.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".