Abdominal Adiposity, Not Cardiorespiratory Fitness, Mediates the Exercise-Induced Change in Insulin Sensitivity in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abdominal obesity and low cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) are associated with insulin resistance in older adults. Exercise is associated with improvement in insulin sensitivity. Whether this association is mediated by change in CRF and/or abdominal obesity is unclear. The current study is a secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial in Kingston, Ontario. Sedentary older adults (60-80 years) (N = 80) who completed the exercise (N = 59) or control (N = 21) conditions for 6 months were included. CRF was measured using a treadmill test, adipose tissue (AT) by magnetic resonance imaging, and insulin sensitivity by hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp. Waist circumference (WC) was measured at the iliac crest. Mediation analyses were used to assess whether abdominal AT and/or CRF mediated the exercise-induced change in insulin sensitivity. By comparison to controls, reduction (mean ± SD) was observed for visceral (-0.4 ± 0.4 kg) and abdominal subcutaneous (-0.4 ± 0.4) AT depots, WC (-4.1 ± 3.2 cm) and BMI (-0.9 ± 0.8 kg/m2) (p < 0.05). Insulin sensitivity (4.2 ± 5.2 M/I) and CRF (0.2 ± 0.3 L/min) improved in the exercise group (p < 0.05). All AT variables, BMI and WC were mediators of the change in insulin sensitivity (p < 0.05). After adjustment for change in total AT, abdominal AT remained a mediator with an effect ratio of 0.79 (p < 0.05), whereas total AT was not significant when adjusted for abdominal AT (p > 0.05). The effect ratio for change in WC and BMI combined (0.63, p<0.05) was greater than either alone. In conclusion, CRF did not mediate the exercise-induced change in insulin sensitivity in older adults. Abdominal adiposity was a strong mediator independent of change in total adiposity.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".