Aerobic Exercise Training Modalities and Prediabetes Risk Reduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prediabetes is linked to several modifiable risk factors, in particular, physical activity participation. The optimal prescription for physical activity remains uncertain. This pilot study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of continuous moderate intensity (CON) versus high-intensity interval training (HIIT) in persons with prediabetes. Outcome measures included glycated hemoglobin (A1C), body composition, musculoskeletal and aerobic fitness. METHODS: Participants (n = 35) were recruited and screened using a questionnaire plus capillary blood point-of-care A1C analysis. After baseline screening/exclusions, 21 participants were randomly assigned to either HIIT or CON training three times per week for 12 wk. All participants also undertook resistance training two times per week. A1C, an oral glucose tolerance test, select measures of physical and physiological fitness were assessed at baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in improvements in select metabolic indicators to training between CON and HIT groups. Pooled participant data showed a mean reduction in A1C of 0.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.3%-0.7%), whereas β-cell function (%β) improved by 28.9% (95% CI = 16.5%-39.2%) and insulin sensitivity (%S) decreased by 34.8 (95% CI = 57.8%-11.8), as assessed by the Homeostatic Model Assessment. Significant reductions in waist circumference of 4.5 cm (P < 0.001) and a 20% (P < 0.001) improvement in aerobic fitness were also observed in both training groups. CONCLUSION: The completion of a 12-wk exercise program involving both resistance training and either HIIT or CON training results in improved glycemic control, visceral adiposity, and aerobic fitness in persons with prediabetes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".