Effects of Exercise on Bone Mass in Young Women with Anorexia Nervosa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The response of bone to exercise in women with anorexia nervosa (AN) is unclear. We investigated the associations between bone mineral density (BMD) and exercise performed while ill and while recovered in women with a history of AN. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 141 women with AN (85 ill; 56 recovered), aged 17-40 yr. BMD at the lumbar spine (LS), femoral neck (FN), and total body (TB) was measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Life History Calendar and Minnesota Leisure Time Physical Activity interviews were used to collect lifetime illness and exercise histories (amount and bone loading type). Average hours per week of each of moderate (MOD) and high (HI) bone loading exercise were determined for three illness phases: "before ill," "while ill," and "while recovered." Participants were categorized into four exercise groups for each phase: MOD-ONLY, HI-ONLY, BOTH, and NEITHER (reference group). Weight-adjusted BMD z-scores were compared in the exercise groups by multivariable linear regression, adjusting for illness duration and severity, and exercise during the other illness phases. RESULTS: In ill participants, MOD-ONLY "while ill" had lower BMD at LS (β = -0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -1.02 to -0.05) and TB (β = -0.73, 95% CI = -1.31 to -0.15) than the NEITHER group. In recovered participants, HI-ONLY "while recovered" had higher BMD at FN (β = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.15-1.75) and TB (β = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.07-1.51) than the NEITHER group. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of exercise on bone in AN patients is dependent on both the type of mechanical loading and the phase of illness during which it was performed. Excessive moderate loading exercise while ill may put patients at higher risk of low bone mass, but high bone loading activities may provoke bone accrual during recovery.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".