Effects of aerobic training, resistance training, or both on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes: a randomized trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous trials have evaluated the effects of aerobic training alone and of resistance training alone on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes, as assessed by hemoglobin A1c values. However, none could assess incremental effects of combined aerobic and resistance training compared with either type of exercise alone. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of aerobic training alone, resistance training alone, and combined exercise training on hemoglobin A1c values in patients with type 2 diabetes. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: 8 community-based facilities. PATIENTS: 251 adults age 39 to 70 years with type 2 diabetes. A negative result on a stress test or clearance by a cardiologist, and adherence to exercise during a 4-week run-in period, were required before randomization. INTERVENTIONS: Aerobic training, resistance training, or both types of exercise (combined exercise training). A sedentary control group was included. Exercise training was performed 3 times weekly for 22 weeks (weeks 5 to 26 of the study). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the change in hemoglobin A1c value at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were changes in body composition, plasma lipid values, and blood pressure. RESULTS: The absolute change in the hemoglobin A1c value in the combined exercise training group compared with the control group was -0.51 percentage point (95% CI, -0.87 to -0.14) in the aerobic training group and -0.38 percentage point (CI, -0.72 to -0.22) in the resistance training group. Combined exercise training resulted in an additional change in the hemoglobin A1c value of -0.46 percentage point (CI, -0.83 to -0.09) compared with aerobic training alone and -0.59 percentage point (CI, -0.95 to -0.23) compared with resistance training alone. Changes in blood pressure and lipid values did not statistically significantly differ among groups. Adverse events were more common in the exercise groups. LIMITATIONS: The generalizability of the results to patients who are less adherent to exercise programs is uncertain. The participants were not blinded, and the total duration of exercise was greater in the combined exercise training group than in the aerobic and resistance training groups. CONCLUSION: Either aerobic or resistance training alone improves glycemic control in type 2 diabetes, but the improvements are greatest with combined aerobic and resistance training. ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00195884.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".