Association Between Aerobic Fitness And Adiponectin In Premenopausal Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Systemic inflammation and the action of the adipocyte have been linked to cardiovascular disease and other chronic conditions, including cancer. Associated markers of inflammation and adiposite activity may be altered by lifestyle factors such as physical activity. PURPOSE To examine the association between aerobic fitness, adiponectin and c-reactive protein. METHODS An extreme-groups split design was used to compare adiponectin and c-reactive protein in premenopausal women with high aerobic fitness (n=16; VO2max ≥ 48 ml·kg·min−1) compared to average aerobic fitness (n=13; VO2max ≥ 40 ml·kg·min−1). Participants were healthy, regularly menstruating, Caucasian women, aged 20 to 42 years, with a normal body mass index (BMI) of 18–24.9, who were not using pharmacologic contraceptives, or tobacco products. Height, weight, and sum of four skinfolds (SSF) were obtained prior to completing an incremental exercise test to exhaustion on a cycle ergometer to determine maximal aerobic fitness (VO2max). A single blood sample was collected during the follicular phase of the following menstrual cycle. RESULTS No significant differences were seen in age, height, weight or BMI between groups, however, the average fitness group had a higher SSF (P=.001). The high fitness group (VO2max 53.0±0.9) had significantly higher adiponectin levels (15.4±1.6 μg/mL) than the average fitness group (VO2max 35.3±1.0) (10.3±1.1 μg/mL) (P=.017). No significant difference between groups was seen in c-reactive protein. Overall, a higher VO2max was associated with higher adiponectin (r=.44, P=0.012), while a higher SSF was associated with lower adiponectin (r=−.53, P=.002). A multivariate regression analysis showed that SSF(U = −.42, P=.051) but not VO2max (β =.16, P=.431), had an independent association with adiponectin levels. CONCLUSIONS This exploratory study found that higher aerobic fitness and lower SSF were associated with higher adiponectin levels. No difference in c-reactive protein was found. Supported by EFF Support for the Advancement of Scholarship from the University of Alberta and a Research Team Grant from the National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC) with funds from the Canadian Cancer Society(CCS) and the CCS/ NCIC Sociobehavioural Cancer Research Network.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".