The Effect of 8 Weeks Aerobic Exercise on Insulin Resistance in Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diabetes complications are the main reasons behind morbidity and mortality preventable by healthy diet and physical activity. There are few studies about the effect of aerobic exercises on insulin resistance in human. Also various training protocols are associated with different results. Since approaches to decrease insulin resistance may be followed by more effectiveness treatment, this study assessed the effect of aerobic exercise on insulin resistance in type 2 diabetes mellitus. In this randomized clinical trial, 53 type 2 diabetic women were randomly divided into two groups as exercise (n=27) and control (n=26).The exercise protocol included warm-up by stretching and flexibility exercises for 10 m, followed by walking for 30 m with maximum intensity 60% increase in heart rate and then stretching in the seated position for 10 m, 3 times a week for 8 weeks. Resistance to insulin was assessed using Homeostasis Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR). Significant differences have been observed in insulin resistance, fasting glucose and plasma insulin between the groups after 8 weeks. There were significant differences in waist and hip circumference, BMI, plasma insulin and insulin resistance within the groups over time. In addition, the changes in waist and hip circumference, FBS, plasma insulin and insulin resistance had significant interaction with the time between the groups. The current exercise protocol has been effective in lowering plasma glucose (p = 0.05), insulin levels (p = 0.000) and insulin resistance (p = 0.02). It seems that aerobic exercises training promote the effectiveness of medical treatment in type 2 diabetes mellitus.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".