Physical activity, total and regional obesity: dose-response considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This review was undertaken to determine whether exercise-induced weight loss was associated with corresponding reductions in total, abdominal, and visceral fat in a dose-response manner. METHODS: A literature search (MEDLINE, 1966--2000) was performed using appropriate keywords to identify studies that consider the influence of exercise-induced weight loss on total and/or abdominal fat. The reference lists of those studies identified were cross-referenced for additional studies. RESULTS: Total fat. Review of available evidence suggested that studies evaluating the utility of physical activity as a means of obesity reduction could be subdivided into two categories based on study duration. Short-term studies (< or = 16 wk, N = 20) were characterized by exercise programs that increased energy expenditure by values double (2200 vs 1100 kcal.wk-1) that of long-term studies (> or = 26 wk, N = 11). Accordingly, short-term studies report reductions in body weight (-0.18 vs -0.06 kg x wk(-1)) and total fat (-0.21 vs -0.06 kg x wk(-1)) that are threefold higher than those reported in long-term studies. Moreover, with respect to dose-response issues, the evidence from short-term studies suggest that exercise-induced weight loss is positively related to reductions in total fat in a dose-response manner. No such relationship was observed when the results from long-term studies were examined. Abdominal fat. Limited evidence suggests that exercise-induced weight loss is associated with reductions in abdominal obesity as measured by waist circumference or imaging methods; however, at present there is insufficient evidence to determine a dose-response relationship between physical activity, and abdominal or visceral fat. CONCLUSION: In response to well-controlled, short-term trials, increasing physical activity expressed as energy expended per week is positively related to reductions in total adiposity in a dose-response manner. Although physical activity is associated with reduction in abdominal and visceral fat, there is insufficient evidence to determine a dose-response relationship.
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 | 0.023 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".