Effects of aerobic training, resistance training, or both on cardiorespiratory and musculoskeletal fitness in adolescents with obesity: the HEARTY trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of aerobic, resistance, and combined exercise training on cardiorespiratory and musculoskeletal fitness in postpubertal adolescents with obesity. After a 4-week supervised moderate-intensity exercise run-in, 304 adolescents aged 14-18 years with body mass index ≥85th percentile were randomized to 4 groups for 22 weeks of aerobic training, resistance training, combined training, or a nonexercising control. All participants received dietary counselling with a maximum daily energy deficit of 250 kcal. Cardiorespiratory fitness (peak oxygen consumption) was measured by indirect calorimetry using a graded treadmill exercise test. Musculoskeletal fitness was measured using the 2003 Canadian Physical Activity Fitness and Lifestyle Appraisal tests (hand grip, push-ups, partial curl-ups, sit and reach, and vertical jump). Muscular strength was assessed using an 8-repetition maximum test on the bench press, seated row, and leg press machines. A greater increase in peak oxygen consumption in the aerobic exercise group (30.6 ± 0.6 to 33.4 ± 0.7 mLO2/kg/min) was measured relative to the control group (30.6 ± 0.5 to 30.9 ± 0.7 mLO2/kg/min) (p = 0.002). Similarly, the number of partial curl-ups increased in the aerobic group (19 ± 1 to 23 ± 1) while no differences were measured in the control group (19 ± 1 to 20 ± 1) (p = 0.015). Increases in muscular strength and number of push-ups were greatest in the resistance group versus the control and combined groups versus the aerobic group (p < 0.05). In conclusion, aerobic training had the strongest effect on cardiorespiratory fitness, while resistance and combined training improved both muscular strength and endurance more than control and aerobic training alone, respectively, in adolescents with obesity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".