The Effects of Resistance Exercise Training on Body Composition and Strength in Obese Prepubertal Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of resistance exercise training on body composition and muscular strength in obese prepubertal children. DESIGN: Study participants, who were between the ages of 8 and 12 years, met Tanner I (stage) criteria, had a body mass index ≥ 95th percentile for age and sex, were randomized to either high-repetition, moderate-intensity resistance training (n = 12) or to the non-intervention control group (n = 7) for 12 weeks. Exercise training was performed twice a week for 75 minutes per session. Body composition was assessed using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry and muscular strength was evaluated using a 1-repetition-maximum test. RESULTS: Exercise-group participants attended 98% of the 24 total sessions and showed a significant increase in body weight (57.6± 13.5 vs 59.6± 14.1 kg), height (144.9± 9 vs 146.6± 10.4 cm), lean body mass (32.6± 6.8 vs 34.0± 7.0 kg), lean body mass index (lean body mass in kg/height2; 15.3± 1.6 vs 15.6± 1.5 kg/m2), arm strength (28.4± 5.8 vs 31.2± 6.0 kg), and leg strength (89.4± 31.7 vs 113.4± 34 2 kg) from baseline measures (P < 0.05). Control group participants also showed significant increases in weight, height, and lean body mass from baseline measures (P < 0.05) but not in arm or leg strength. When the changes in participant body composition and muscular strength were compared between the exercise and control groups, significant differences were found in leg lean mass and leg strength (P < 0.05). There were no changes in percent body fat and fat mass index [FM/height2(kg/m2)] in either group. CONCLUSION: Resistance training increases leg lean mass and leg strength in obese prepubertal youth and may have a positive effect on overall physical activity and health.
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".