THE EFFECT OF RESISTANCE TRAINING ON THE RISK FACTOR PROFILE OF PATIENTS WITH DIABETES AND CONCOMITANT CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research shows that resistance training (RET) produces positive results in members of both the cardiac rehabilitation and Type 2 diabetic populations, thus it appears to be a logical adjunct to aerobic exercise training (AET) in cardiac rehabilitation patients with Type 2 diabetes. PURPOSE: To determine the effect of the addition of RET to AET on fasting blood glucose (FG), lipid profile, hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C), body weight (BW), waist circumference (WC), body mass index (BMI) and functional capacity (FC) in cardiac rehabilitation patients with Type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Thirty eight patients data (29 AET, 9 AET + RET) were included in the analysis [AET(N = 29) 59.8 ± 10.4yrs, 22 male, 7 female]; [AET+RET(N = 9); 58.4 ± 6.95yrs, 7 male, 2 female]. Patients participating in aerobic exercise training and resistance training (AET+RET) were compared to patients completing aerobic exercise (AET) only. Study data was obtained via retrospective review of patient data from the Cardiac Wellness Institute of Calgary (CWIC) database. All patients were required to complete 12 weeks of AET and after 6 weeks of AET, 9 patients self-selected to participate in the adjunct RET. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference over time was found only in the FC variable. FC increased in both groups over the course of the study (F (1, 35) = 49.34, P = .000). Although not statistically significant, positive trends were observed in the following variables: FG, HbA1C, BW, BMI, WC, total cholesterol (TC) and low density lipoprotein (LDL), as each of these variables decreased over the course of the study. A positive trend was also observed with high density lipoprotein (HDL), as this value increased over the course of the study. CONCLUSION: The AET+RET performed in this study does not appear to have an advantage over AET only. The intensity level selected in this study was appropriate for diabetic and cardiac rehabilitation patients according to other studies, however in review of the literature, it is apparent that the RET period in this study may have been too short and too infrequent in order to observe significant changes in body composition, diabetic glycemic control and lipid profile. Further study into the effects of a longer and more frequent RET period is required in cardiac rehabilitation patients with Type 2 diabetes and concomitant coronary artery disease.
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) | 0.000 | 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".