“Weighing” the effects of exercise and intrinsic aerobic capacity: are there beneficial effects independent of changes in weight?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been known for centuries that regularly performed exercise has beneficial effects on metabolic health. Owing to its central role in locomotion and the fact that it accounts for a large majority of whole-body glucose disposal and fatty acid oxidation, the effects of exercise on skeletal muscle has been a central focus in exercise physiology research. With this being said it is becoming increasingly well recognized that both adipose tissue and liver metabolism are robustly modified by exercise, especially in conditions of obesity and insulin resistance. One of the difficult questions to address is if the effects of exercise are direct or occur secondary to exercise-induced weight loss. The purpose of this review is to highlight recent work that has attempted to tease out the protective effects of exercise, or intrinsic aerobic capacity, against metabolic and inflammatory challenges as it relates to the treatment and prevention of obesity and insulin resistance. Recent studies reporting improvements in liver and adipose tissue insulin action following a single bout of exercise will also be discussed. The research highlighted in this review sheds new insight into protective, anti-inflammatory effects of exercise that occur largely independent of changes in adiposity and body weight.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".