Effects of aerobic or resistance training or both on health-related quality of life in youth with obesity: the HEARTY Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the effects of aerobic and resistance training, and their combination on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in adolescents with overweight or obesity. After a 4-week run-in period, 304 (91 males, 213 females) post-pubertal adolescents aged 14-18 years, were randomized to 4 groups for 22 weeks of: 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. Indicators of HRQoL such as overall HRQoL, and physical and psychosocial (an aggregate of emotional, social, and school functioning) HRQoL at baseline and 6 months postintervention were measured by the Pediatric Quality of Life questionnaire. The trial began in March 2005 and was completed in June 2011. In the intention-to-treat analyses, all groups showed significant improvements at 6 months on all HRQoL indicators. The aerobic group showed greater improvements than controls on physical HRQoL (mean differences of 5.5; 95% CI; 1.4-9.6, p = 0.009). In participants with ≥70% adherence, combined training produced greater improvements than control on overall HRQoL (mean differences of 4.8, 95% CI; 0.7-9.0, p = 0.02), physical HRQoL (mean differences of 5.8; 95% CI: 0.6-10.7; p = 0.03), social HRQoL (mean differences of 7.6; 95% CI: 1.0-14.2; p = 0.02), and school-based HRQoL (mean differences of 7.6; 95% CI: 1.0-14.2; p = 0.02). These findings highlight the potential importance of including resistance exercise into traditional aerobic exercise programs to maximize HRQoL in adolescents with 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 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) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".