MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

EFFECTS OF EXERCISE TRAINING ON STRENGTH, VO2MAX AND GLUCOSE CONTROL IN TYPE 2 DIABETIC MEN VS. WOMEN

2003· article· en· W2023176243 on OpenAlexaff
R Attema, Glen P. Kenny, Katherine Dittmann, Penny Phillips, Ronald J. Sigal

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerobic exerciseResistance trainingMedicineStrength trainingLeg pressBench pressPhysical therapyTreadmillType 2 diabetesVO2 maxPhysical strengthInternal medicineHeart rateDiabetes mellitusEndocrinologyBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous exercise studies in type 2 diabetics (T2DM) have pooled results for men and women. Due to higher androgen levels and a greater propensity to build muscle, men may have greater improvements in glucose control through resistance training than women. PURPOSE To compare changes in strength, VO2max and HbA1c achieved through aerobic training, resistance training or their combination between previously sedentary T2DM men and women. METHODS Eighty-eight men (M) and women (W) aged 40–70 years, BMI 25–50 (mean 33.5) kg/m2 were randomly assigned to 6 months of 3x/wk aerobic only (A; 13M, 7W), resistance only (R;15M, 8W), combined aerobic and resistance training (AR;15M, 5W) and waiting-list control (C; 16M, 9W). The A group increased their workload to 45 min at 75% of HR-max, while the R group completed 2–3 sets of 8 repetition max (RM) for 7 exercises. The AR group completed aerobic plus resistance exercise as in A and R. Strength was evaluated through 8 RM testing of seated row, bench press and leg press. A graded treadmill ramp protocol to volitional fatigue was used to establish VO2max. RESULTS No significant differences were found between men and women in response to 6 months of exercise training. Mean increases in VO2max for A were 9.2% in men and 5.2% in women and for AR were 6.9% in men and 7.2% in women. Strength of the 3 exercises increased in AR by 51% in men and 46% in women and in R by 67% in men and 86% in women. HbA1c decreased in both AR men (15.3%) and women (12.6%) and A men (10.1%) and women (7.8%) while R men showed a 4.5% decline in HbA1c compared to a 2.3% increase in R women. CONCLUSIONS Men and women had similar VO2max and strength increases from A and R exercise respectively. Aerobic exercise improved glucose control in both genders. Resistance exercise alone may improve glucose control modestly in men, but not women. The combination of AR exercise appears beneficial for both genders. Supported by CIHR, CDA and NSERC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicCardiovascular and exercise physiology→French-language works237,207→