Energy Cost of Walking in Boys Who Differ in Adiposity But Are Matched for Body Mass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the energy cost of treadmill walking, in pairs of obese and lean adolescents who were matched for total body mass. METHODS: Metabolic energy expenditure was determined at 67, 83, and 100 m.min-1, in nine obese and nine nonobese 11- to 18-yr-old boys. Total adiposity and fat distribution in the trunk and limbs were assessed using DXA. RESULTS: There were no intergroup differences in the net (exercise minus rest) energy cost at the two lower speeds, but the obese boys expended more energy at 100 m.min-1 (12%, P < 0.05). Heart rate was consistently higher in the obese boys: 18% at 67 m.min-1, 22% at 83 m.min-1, and 28% at 100 m.min-1. Pooling all subjects together, body mass, rather than adiposity, was the main predictor of energy cost: 89.1%, 76.3%, and 62.1% (P < 0.05 for all) of the total variance at 67, 83, and 100 m.min-1, respectively. The variance explained by total body fat was only 2.1%, 8.4%, and 16%, respectively. There was no relationship between [OV0312]O(2net) and the proportion of fat in body segments. CONCLUSION: It is total body mass, more than adiposity (total and regional) per se, that affects the energy cost of locomotion in obese boys.
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".