Effects of Resistance Training on Insulin Sensitivity in Overweight Latino Adolescent Males
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Insulin resistance is thought to be a core defect in the pathophysiology of obesity-related comorbidities in children, such as type 2 diabetes. Exercise training is known to improve insulin resistance and reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes in adults. However, very little is known regarding the effects of exercise on insulin resistance in youth. Therefore, we examined the effects of a 16-wk resistance training exercise intervention on insulin sensitivity in youth at high risk for developing type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Twenty-two overweight Latino adolescent males were randomly assigned to either a twice-per-week resistance training group (RT=11) or a nonexercising control group (C=11) for 16 wk. Strength was assessed by one-repetition maximum, body composition was quantified by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, and insulin sensitivity was determined by the frequently sampled intravenous glucose tolerance test with minimal modeling. RESULTS: Significant increases in upper- and lower-body strength were observed in the RT compared with the C group. The RT group significantly increased insulin sensitivity compared with the C group (P<0.05), and this increase remained significant after adjustment for changes in total fat mass and total lean tissue mass (P<0.05). Compared with baseline values, insulin sensitivity increased 45.1+/-7.3% in the RT group versus -0.9+/-12.9% in controls (P<0.01). CONCLUSION: A twice-per-week 16-wk resistance training program can significantly increase insulin sensitivity in overweight Latino adolescent males independent of changes in body composition.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".