High-intensity exercise training does not influence body weight but improves lipid oxidation in obese adults: a 6-week RCT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives This study examined the effects of 6 weeks of high-intensity training (HIT) on lipid oxidation (LO) rates during incremental exercises in obese adults. Methods Twenty-four obese adults were randomised into a no-exercise control group (n=12; body mass index=33.3 (4.8) kg.m −2 ) and a HIT group (18 sessions of 6×6 s of supramaximal cycling and 2 min passive intervals; n=12; body mass index=33.2 (2.8)kg.m −2 ). The percentage of LO contribution was computed at rest and for all workloads (25, 50, 75, 100 and 125 W) in both groups before and after training via a graded maximal cycling test. Results After training, the HIT group showed significantly higher LO at rest and at 25, 50 and 75 W compared with baseline (p<0.01) and the control group (p<0.01). Moreover, for the training group, the homoeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) index decreased significantly from the baseline value (p<0.01) and the control group value (p<0.01). The increases in LO observed at rest and stages 25, 50 and 75 W were positively correlated with the declines in the HOMA-IR index (r=0.87, r=0.83, r=0.91 and r=0.88; p<0.01). Conclusion In obese adults, HIT increased lipid contributions to energy release at rest and in response to incremental exercise, while there were no changes in participants’ aerobic capacity. This supports the hypothesis that metabolic changes rather than improved aerobic capacity are important to improve LO. Trial registration number ISRCTN66508384. Stage: post-results.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".