Effects of aerobic training, resistance training, or both on psychological health in adolescents with obesity: The HEARTY randomized controlled trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of aerobic training, resistance training, and combined training on mood, body image, and self-esteem in adolescents with obesity. METHOD: After a 4-week prerandomization treatment, 304 postpubertal adolescents (91 males, 213 females) with obesity ages 14-18 years were randomized to 1 of 4 groups for 22 weeks: aerobic training (n = 75), resistance training (n = 78), combined aerobic and resistance training (n = 75), or nonexercising control (n = 76). All participants received dietary counseling, with a daily energy deficit of 250 kcal. Mood was measured using the Brunel Mood Scale. Body image was assessed using the Multiple Body Self-Relations Questionnaire, and physical self-perceptions and global self-esteem were measured using the Harter Physical Self-Perceptions Questionnaire. RESULTS: Median adherence was 62%, 56%, and 64% in aerobic, resistance, and combined training, respectively. Resistance and combined training produced greater improvements than control on vigor, and resistance training reduced depressive symptoms. All groups improved on body image and physical self-perceptions, but combined showed greater increases than control on perceived physical conditioning, while only resistance training showed greater increases than controls on global self-esteem. Both combined and resistance training demonstrated greater increases in perceived strength than control. Psychological benefits were more related to better adherence and reductions in body fat than changes in strength or fitness. CONCLUSION: Resistance training, alone or in combination with aerobic training, may provide psychological benefits in adolescents with overweight or obesity, and therefore could be an alternative to aerobic training for some individuals in the biological and psychological management of adolescent obesity.
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 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 | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".