Resistance Versus Aerobic Exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In type 1 diabetes, small studies have found that resistance exercise (weight lifting) reduces HbA(1c). In the current study, we examined the acute impacts of resistance exercise on glycemia during exercise and in the subsequent 24 h compared with aerobic exercise and no exercise. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Twelve physically active individuals with type 1 diabetes (HbA(1c) 7.1 ± 1.0%) performed 45 min of resistance exercise (three sets of seven exercises at eight repetitions maximum), 45 min of aerobic exercise (running at 60% of Vo(2max)), or no exercise on separate days. Plasma glucose was measured during and for 60 min after exercise. Interstitial glucose was measured by continuous glucose monitoring 24 h before, during, and 24 h after exercise. RESULTS: Treatment-by-time interactions (P < 0.001) were found for changes in plasma glucose during and after exercise. Plasma glucose decreased from 8.4 ± 2.7 to 6.8 ± 2.3 mmol/L (P = 0.008) during resistance exercise and from 9.2 ± 3.4 to 5.8 ± 2.0 mmol/L (P = 0.001) during aerobic exercise. No significant changes were seen during the no-exercise control session. During recovery, glucose levels did not change significantly after resistance exercise but increased by 2.2 ± 0.6 mmol/L (P = 0.023) after aerobic exercise. Mean interstitial glucose from 4.5 to 6.0 h postexercise was significantly lower after resistance exercise versus aerobic exercise. CONCLUSIONS: Resistance exercise causes less initial decline in blood glucose during the activity but is associated with more prolonged reductions in postexercise glycemia than aerobic exercise. This might account for HbA(1c) reductions found in studies of resistance exercise but not aerobic exercise in type 1 diabetes.
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) | 0.007 | 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".