Exercise Effect on Weight and Body Fat in Men and Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The effect of national exercise recommendations on adiposity is unknown and may differ by sex. We examined long-term effects of aerobic exercise on adiposity in women and men. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: This was a 12-month randomized, controlled clinical trial testing exercise effect on weight and body composition in men (N = 102) and women (N = 100). Sedentary/unfit persons, 40 to 75 years old, were recruited through physician practices and media. The intervention was facility- and home-based moderate-to-vigorous intensity aerobic activity, 60 min/d, 6 days/wk vs. controls (no intervention). RESULTS: Exercisers exercised a mean 370 min/wk (men) and 295 min/wk (women), and seven dropped the intervention. Exercisers lost weight (women, -1.4 vs. +0.7 kg in controls, p = 0.008; men, -1.8 vs. -0.1 kg in controls, p = 0.03), BMI (women, -0.6 vs. +0.3 kg/m(2) in controls, p = 0.006; men, -0.5 kg/m(2) vs. no change in controls, p = 0.03), waist circumference (women, -1.4 vs. +2.2 cm in controls, p < 0.001; men, -3.3 vs. -0.4 cm in controls, p = 0.003), and total fat mass (women, -1.9 vs. +0.2 kg in controls, p = 0.001; men, -3.0 vs. +0.2 kg in controls, p < 0.001). Exercisers with greater increases in pedometer-measured steps per day had greater decreases in weight, BMI, body fat, and intra-abdominal fat (all p trend < 0.05 in both men and women). Similar trends were observed for increased minutes per day of exercise and for increases in maximal oxygen consumption. DISCUSSION: These data support the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Institute of Medicine guidelines of 60 min/d of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".