Evidence that the association between exercise intensity and insulin sensitivity is sex dependent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine if, after adjusting for the contribution of exercise dose, exercise intensity was associated with the improvement of insulin sensitivity. Abdominally obese, sedentary men (n = 16, (mean ± SD) age 45.0 ± 7.5 years, waist circumference 108.6 ± 5.3 cm) and women (n = 18, (mean ± SD) age 42.3 ± 6.2 years, waist circumference 100.1 ± 8.2 cm) performed daily, supervised exercise for 3 and 4 months, respectively. Exercising at a self-selected exercise intensity, men were required to expend 700 kcal per session and women 500 kcal per session. Exercise intensity and dose were determined using heart rate and oxygen consumption data obtained from repeated graded exercise tests. Insulin sensitivity was determined by hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp. Insulin sensitivity improved in both men and women (change scores: men 7.2 ± 5.4 mg·(kg skeletal muscle (skm))(-1)·min(-1); women 5.8 ± 7.1 mg·(kg skm)(-1)·min(-1); p < 0.05). Exercise intensity was associated with the improvement of insulin sensitivity in men (unstandardized regression coefficient (β) = 0.43, p = 0.02). Adjusting for exercise dose, total abdominal adipose tissue (AT), or visceral AT did not alter this association (p < 0.05). Exercise intensity was not associated with the improvement of insulin sensitivity in women (β = -0.11, p = 0.7). Adjusting for exercise dose, total abdominal AT, or visceral AT did not change this association in women (p > 0.05). Our findings suggest that exercise intensity is independently associated with the improvement of insulin sensitivity in abdominally obese men but not women.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".