MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

EFFECTS OF AEROBIC AND RESISTANCE EXERCISE ON VO2MAX, STRENGTH, AND GLUCOSE CONTROL IN OLDER AND YOUNGER TYPE 2 DIABETIC SUBJECTS

2003· article· en· W2055783903 on OpenAlexaffabout
Katherine Dittmann, Glen P. Kenny, R Attema, Penny Phillips, K D. Weatherbee, 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 exerciseMedicineResistance trainingTreadmillBench pressPhysical therapyStrength trainingVO2 maxLeg pressRandomized controlled trialType 2 diabetesPhysical strengthOne-repetition maximumHeart rateInternal medicineDiabetes mellitusBlood pressureEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

HbA1c reflects average blood glucose over the previous 2–3 months. In previous studies, resistance exercise training has reduced HbA1c primarily in studies of older type 2 diabetic (T2DM) subjects (age > 55 or 60), while aerobic exercise has reduced HbA1c primarily in studies of relatively younger subjects. PURPOSE To compare the changes in VO2max, strength and HbA1c in response to 6 months exercise training in older (55–70 yrs: n=51) vs. younger (40–50 yrs: n=37) T2DM participants in a randomized trial. METHODS Previously inactive T2DM subjects were randomized to aerobic exercise (A; progressing to 45 min at 75% HRmax, n=20), resistance exercise [R; 2–3 sets of 8–12 repetition maximum (RM), n=23], combination aerobic and resistance training (AR; n=20) or a waiting control-list group (C; n=25). Each exercise group trained 3x/wk for 6 months. Strength testing was done using an 8 RM protocol for seated row, leg press and bench press. Mean strength gains are reported as an average of the 3 exercises. VO2max was assessed using graded treadmill protocols to volitional fatigue. All tests were performed at baseline and 6-months. RESULTS The responses of older and younger subjects did not differ significantly on any measure. Mean increases in VO2max for A were 8.6% in old and 6.7% in young and for AR were 5.3% in old and 8.6% in young. Strength increased in AR by 47.3% in old and 52.4% in young, and in R by 60.9% in old and 86.5% in young subjects. Neither VO2max nor strength changed significantly in C. HbA1c decreased by 8.9% in both old and young A, 11.8% in old AR, 17.4% in young AR, 2.9% in old R, and 1.3% in young R. No change in HbA1c was measured in either older or younger subjects in C. CONCLUSION Older (55–70 yrs) and younger (40–54 yrs) T2DM subjects respond similarily to aerobic, resistance or combined exercise in terms of strength, VO2max and glucose control. Supported by CIHR, CDA and the University of Ottawa.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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