Nutrition and Exercise Reduce Excessive Weight Gain in Normal-Weight Pregnant Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of an exercise program of two different intensities, with nutritional control, on gestational weight gain (GWG), infant birth weight, and maternal weight retention at 2 months postpartum (2 mopp). METHODS: Pregnant women (prepregnancy body mass index = 18.5-24.9 kg·m) were randomized at study entry (16-20 wk of gestation) to a low-intensity (LI, 30% HR reserve (HRR), n = 23) or moderate-intensity (MI, 70% HRR, n = 26) exercise program, with nutritional control. The exercise program consisted of walking sessions three to four times per week, gradually increasing exercise time from 25 to 40 min per session. Forty-five normal-weight women who did not participate in any structured exercise program during pregnancy and had singleton births were used as a historical control group. RESULTS: Total GWG was higher in the control group (18.3 ± 5.3 kg) compared with the LI (15.3 ± 2.9 kg, P = 0.01) and MI (14.9 ± 3.8 kg, P = 0.003) groups. During the intervention, GWG was similar in both intervention groups, with weekly rates of weight gain of 0.49 ± 0.1 and 0.47 ± 0.1 kg·wk in the LI and MI groups, respectively. Excessive GWG during the intervention was prevented in 70% of the women in the LI group and 77% of those in the MI group. Excessive GWG occurred before the intervention began. At 2 mopp, 18% and 28% of the women in the LI and MI groups, respectively, retained ≤2.0 kg compared with only 7% of those in the control group. Infant birth weight was not different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that a prenatal nutrition and exercise program regardless of exercise intensity, reduced excessive GWG and decreased weight retention at 2 mopp in women of normal weight before pregnancy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".