Effects of Resistance Training and Endurance Training on Insulin Sensitivity in Nonobese, Young Women: A Controlled Randomized Trial1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the effects of a 6-month randomized program of endurance training (n = 14), resistance training (n = 17), or control conditions (n = 20) on insulin sensitivity in nonobese, younger women (18-35 yr). To examine the possible mechanism(s) related to alterations in insulin sensitivity, we measured body composition, regional adiposity, and skeletal muscle characteristics with computed tomography. We observed no changes in total body fat, sc abdominal adipose tissue, or visceral adipose tissue with endurance or resistance training. Insulin sensitivity, however, increased with endurance training (pre, 421 +/- 107; post, 490 +/- 133 mg/min; P < 0.05) and resistance training (pre, 382 +/- 87; post, 417 +/- 89 mg/min; P = 0.06). When the glucose disposal rate was expressed per kg fat-free mass (FFM), the improved insulin sensitivity persisted in endurance-trained (pre, 10.5 +/- 2.7; post, 12.1 +/- 3.3 mg/min x kg FFM; P < 0.05), but not in resistance-trained (pre, 9.7 +/- 1.9; post, 10.2 +/- 1.8 mg/min x kg FFM; P = NS) women. Muscle attenuation ratios increased (P < 0.05) in both endurance- and resistance-trained individuals, but this was not related to changes in insulin sensitivity. Moreover, the change in insulin sensitivity was not related to the increased maximum aerobic capacity in endurance-trained women (r = 0.24; P = NS). We suggest that both endurance and resistance training improve glucose disposal, although by different mechanisms, in young women. An increase in the amount of FFM from resistance training contributes to increased glucose disposal probably from a mass effect, without altering the intrinsic capacity of the muscle to respond to insulin. On the other hand, endurance training enhances glucose disposal independent of changes in FFM or maximum aerobic capacity, suggestive of an intrinsic change in the muscle to metabolize glucose. We conclude that enhanced glucose uptake after physical training in young women occurs with and without changes in FFM and body composition.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".