Exercise training and weight loss, not always a happy marriage: single blind exercise trials in females with diverse BMI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals show high variability in body weight responses to exercise training. Expectations and motivation towards effects of exercise on body weight might influence eating behaviour and could conceal regulatory mechanisms. We conducted 2 single-blind exercise trials (4 weeks (study 1) and 8 weeks (study 2)) with concealed objectives and exclusion of individuals with weight loss intention. Circuit exercise training programs (3 times a week (45-90 min), intensity 50%-90% peak oxygen uptake for 4 and 8 weeks) were conducted. Thirty-four females finished the 4-week intervention and 36 females the 8-week intervention. Overweight/obese (OV/OB) and lean female participants' weight/body composition responses were assessed and fasting and postprandial appetite hormone levels (PYY, insulin, amylin, leptin, ghrelin) were measured before and after the intervention for understanding potential contribution to individuals' body weight response to exercise training (study 2). Exercise training in both studies did not lead to a significant reduction of weight/body mass index (BMI) in the participants' groups; however, lean participants gained muscle mass. Appetite hormones levels were significantly (p < 0.05) altered in the OV/OB group, affecting fasting (-24%) and postprandial amylin (-14%) levels. Investigation of individuals' BMI responses using multiple regression analysis revealed that levels of fasting leptin, postprandial amylin increase, and BMI were significant predictors of BMI change, explaining about 43% of the variance. In conclusion, tested exercise training did not lead to weight loss in female participants, while a considerable proportion of variance in body weight response to training could be explained by individuals' appetite hormone levels and BMI.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".