Aerobic exercise but not resistance exercise reduces intrahepatic lipid content and visceral fat and improves insulin sensitivity in obese adolescent girls: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is unclear whether regular exercise alone (no caloric restriction) is a useful strategy to reduce adiposity and obesity-related metabolic risk factors in obese girls. We examined the effects of aerobic (AE) vs. resistance exercise (RE) alone on visceral adipose tissue (VAT), intrahepatic lipid, and insulin sensitivity in obese girls. Forty-four obese adolescent girls (BMI ≥95th percentile, 12-18 yr) with abdominal obesity (waist circumference 106.5 ± 11.1 cm) were randomized to 3 mo of 180 min/wk AE (n = 16) or RE (n = 16) or a nonexercising control group (n = 12). Total fat and VAT were assessed by MRI and intrahepatic lipid by proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Intermuscular AT (IMAT) was measured by CT. Insulin sensitivity was evaluated by a 3-h hyperinsulinemic (80 mU·m(2)·min(-1)) euglycemic clamp. Compared with controls (0.13 ± 1.10 kg), body weight did not change (P > 0.1) in the AE (-1.31 ± 1.43 kg) and RE (-0.31 ± 1.38 kg) groups. Despite the absence of weight loss, total body fat (%) and IMAT decreased (P < 0.05) in both exercise groups compared with control. Compared with control, significant (P < 0.05) reductions in VAT (Δ-15.68 ± 7.64 cm(2)) and intrahepatic lipid (Δ-1.70 ± 0.74%) and improvement in insulin sensitivity (Δ0.92 ± 0.27 mg·kg(-1)·min(-1) per μU/ml) were observed in the AE group but not the RE group. Improvements in insulin sensitivity in the AE group were associated with the reductions in total AT mass (r = -0.65, P = 0.02). In obese adolescent girls, AE but not RE is effective in reducing liver fat and visceral adiposity and improving insulin sensitivity independent of weight loss or calorie restriction.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".