Exercise and Dairy Protein Interactions in the Treatment of Obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this investigation was to compare the individual and combined effects of dairy protein and endurance exercise training in reducing weight gain and adiposity in a rodent model of diet‐induced obesity. A 6‐week feeding intervention of high fat, high sucrose (HFHS) diet was used to rapidly induce obesity and to impair glucose homeostasis in male Sprague Dawley rats (6‐weeks of age). Rats were then randomized to one of four weight matched, isocaloric groups (4.6 kcal/gram) for 6 weeks, where the dairy protein source was supplemented in the form of non‐fat skim milk powder: 1) HFHS‐casein, no treatment, 2) HFHS‐casein, exercise 3) HFHS, dairy protein and 4) HFHS, dairy protein, exercise. The exercise training intervention took place 5 days/week followed by a 2‐day recovery period (60 minutes of treadmill running: 20m/min, 10% incline). The effects of the exercise training along with the dairy protein were greater than either intervention alone in attenuating increases in body weight, along with epididymal and inguinal adipose tissue mass, while no significant differences were observed in food intake, total energy expenditure (TEE) and respiratory exchange ratio (RER) amongst all four treatment groups. The total weight of feces excreted over a 36‐hour period was higher in the dairy group, and this was associated with an increase in the total amount of lipid excreted in the HFHS dairy when compared to the casein group. This study provides new evidence that dairy protein is as effective as exercise training in preventing further weight gain in obese rats. While exercise training reduces weight gain through increases in energy expenditure with each bout of exercise, dairy protein would appear to reduce the amount of lipid that is absorbed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".