The Effects of Resistance Training on Metabolic Health With Weight Regain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine whether resistance training effectively maintains improvements in cardiometabolic syndrome risk factors during weight regain, 9 individuals lost 4% to 6% of their body weight during an 8- to 12-week diet- and aerobic exercise-induced weight loss phase followed by a controlled weight regain phase (8-12 weeks), during which they regained approximately 50% of the lost weight while participating in a supervised resistance training program. Following weight loss (6.0%+/-0.3%), body mass index, body fat percentage, waist circumference, all abdominal adipose tissue depots, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, insulin, and homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) were significantly reduced, while quantitative insulin-sensitivity check index (QUICKI) and cardiorespiratory fitness (maximal oxygen consumption) significantly increased. During weight regain (48.3%+/-3.3% of lost weight), body fat percentage, waist circumference, and maximal oxygen consumption were maintained and muscular strength and lean body mass significantly increased. Abdominal adipose tissue depots, insulin, HOMA, and QUICKI did not significantly change after weight regain. Resistance training was effective in maintaining improvements in metabolic health during weight regain.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".