Effect of Exercise Training on Physical Fitness in Type II Diabetes Mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Few studies have compared changes in cardiorespiratory fitness between aerobic training only or in combination with resistance training. In addition, no study to date has compared strength gains between resistance training and combined exercise training in type II diabetes mellitus (T2DM). PURPOSE: We evaluated the effects of aerobic exercise training (A group), resistance exercise training (R group), combined aerobic and resistance training (A + R group), and sedentary lifestyle (C group) on cardiorespiratory fitness and muscular strength in individuals with T2DM. METHODS: Two hundred and fifty-one participants in the Diabetes Aerobic and Resistance Exercise trial were randomly allocated to A, R, A + R, or C. Peak oxygen consumption (V O(2peak)), workload, and treadmill time were determined after maximal exercise testing at 0 and 6 months. Muscular strength was measured as the eight-repetition maximum on the leg press, bench press, and seated row. Responses were compared between younger (aged 39-54 yr) and older (aged 55-70 yr) adults and between sexes. RESULTS: VO(2peak) improved by 1.73 and 1.93 mL O(2)*kg(-1)*min(-1) with A and A + R, respectively, compared with C (P < 0.05). Strength improvements were significant after A + R and R on the leg press (A + R: 48%, R: 65%), bench press (A + R: 38%, R: 57%), and seated row (A + R: 33%, R: 41%; P < 0.05). There was no main effect of age or sex on training performance outcomes. There was, however, a tendency for older participants to increase VO(2peak) more with A + R (+1.5 mL O(2)*kg(-1)*min(-1)) than with A only (+0.7 mL O(2)*kg(-1)*min(-1)). CONCLUSIONS: Combined training did not provide additional benefits nor did it mitigate improvements in fitness in younger subjects compared with aerobic and resistance training alone. In older subjects, there was a trend to greater aerobic fitness gains with A + R versus A alone.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".