Impact of resistance training with or without caloric restriction on physical capacity in obese older women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Objective: To investigate the specific impact of resistance training (RT) with or without caloric restriction (CR) on physical capacity in obese older women. Design: Forty-eight postmenopausal obese women, physically independent and between the ages of 55 and 75 years were recruited. The women were randomly assigned to one of four groups (1: RT [n = 12], 2: CR [n = 12], 3: CR + RT [n = 12], or 4: control group [C; n = 12]) for 3 months. CR and CR + RT groups participated in a weekly group session on nutrition, and RT and CR + RT groups took part in a resistance training program. Physical capacity was measured with 11 different performance tests. A global physical capacity score (range, 0-44) was then computed using quartiles of each test. Body composition was measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Results: Body weight, total fat mass, percentage of fat mass, and body mass index (kg/m2) significantly decreased in the CR and CR + RT groups (P < 0.01), whereas only the CR group showed a significant decrease in lean body mass (P < 0.05) after the 3-month program. The global physical capacity score significantly improved in the RT group (10.0 ± 8.8%; P < 0.01), compared with the C group after 3 months. Conclusion: Overall, the 3-month RT program alone had a greater effect on physical capacity than CR or CR + RT. Thus, a 3-month RT could help prevent long-term decreases in physical capacity in obese older women. Resistance training had greater effects on physical capacity than caloric restriction alone or in combination with resistance training. Resistance training without weight loss could be a simple and effective approach to prevent long-term decreases in physical capacity in older obese 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".