Cardiorespiratory Fitness Attenuates Metabolic Risk Independent of Abdominal Subcutaneous and Visceral Fat in Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Moderate to high levels of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) are associated with a lower risk of the metabolic syndrome and all-cause mortality. Unknown is whether CRF attenuates health risk for a given level of abdominal visceral fat, subcutaneous fat, and/or waist circumference. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The sample studied comprised 297 apparently healthy men with available computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scans of the abdomen, metabolic data, and maximal treadmill exercise test results. Men were categorized into low-CRF (20%, n = 56), moderate-CRF (40%, n = 94), and high-CRF (40%, n = 147) groups based on age and exercise test results. All analyses were adjusted for age. RESULTS: For a given level of waist circumference, visceral fat, or subcutaneous fat, the high-CRF group had lower triglyceride levels (P < 0.05) and higher HDL cholesterol levels than the low- or moderate-CRF groups. There was a significant group interaction (P < 0.01) for blood pressure, indicating that the increase in blood pressure per unit increase in visceral fat or waist circumference was greater in men in the low-CRF group compared with the high-CRF group. The relative risks of having the metabolic syndrome were 1.8 (95% CI 1.0-3.1) and 1.6 (0.9-2.7) times higher in the low- and moderate-CRF groups, respectively, compared with the high-CRF group after adjusting for age, visceral fat, and subcutaneous fat (P for trend = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: High levels of CRF are associated with a substantial reduction in health risk for a given level of visceral and subcutaneous fat.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".