Resistance exercise: good for more than just Grandma and Grandpa’s muscles
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Progressive resistance training promotes strength gains in both the young and the aged. Importantly, gains in strength in aged persons are, with the appropriate duration, intensity, and progression, not simply due to neuromuscular mechanisms, but also encompass muscle fibre hypertrophy. Critically, the resistance exercise-induced changes in aged skeletal muscle are associated with numerous health benefits, the most obvious of which are the gains in strength and, with the correct training program, power; as a result, functional independence is improved and the risk for falls is apparently reduced. Aside from the well-documented effects of resistance training on strength and power, a body of research is now beginning to emerge that shows resistance exercise also promotes metabolic health. This is crucial information, since it effectively highlights an underappreciated aspect of resistance exercise. Specifically, resistance exercise not only promotes strength gains, but also reduces risk for diabetes and cardiovascular disease. The benefits of resistance exercise do not end at metabolic health, however, and "spill over" into many other realms. In fact, resistance exercise programs have been shown to reduce participants' use of the health care system. Viewed collectively, the multiple benefits of resistance exercise represent an attractive option for our aging population to enhance and maintain their health from a number of perspectives that are not achievable through pharmacological intervention or with solely aerobic-based exercise.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it