Exercise without Weight Loss Does Not Reduce C-Reactive Protein
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Numerous cross-sectional studies have observed an inverse association between C-reactive protein (CRP) and physical activity. Exercise training trials have produced conflicting results, but none of these studies was specifically designed to examine CRP. The objective of the Inflammation and Exercise (INFLAME) study was to examine whether aerobic exercise training without dietary intervention can reduce CRP in individuals with elevated CRP. METHODS: The study was a randomized controlled trial of 162 sedentary men and women with elevated CRP (> or = 2.0 mg·L(-1)). Participants were randomized into a nonexercise control group or an exercise group that trained for 4 months. The primary outcome was change in CRP. RESULTS: The study participants had a mean (SD) age of 49.7 (10.9) yr and a mean body mass index of 31.8 (4.0) kg·m(-2). The median (interquartile range (IQR)) and mean baseline CRP levels were 4.1 (2.5-6.1) and 4.8 (3.4) mg·L(-1), respectively. In the exercise group, median exercise compliance was 99.9%. There were no differences in median (IQR) change in CRP between the control and exercise groups (0.0 (-0.5 to 0.9) vs 0.0 (-0.8 to 0.7) mg·L(-1), P = 0.4). The mean (95% confidence interval) change in CRP adjusted for gender and baseline weight was similar in the control and exercise groups, with no significant difference between groups (0.5 (-0.4 to 1.3) vs 0.4 (-0.5 to 1.2) mg·L(-1), P = 0.9). Change in weight was correlated with change in CRP. CONCLUSIONS: Exercise training without weight loss is not associated with a reduction in CRP.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".