Strength and cardiometabolic risk in young adults: The mediator role of aerobic fitness and waist circumference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to analyze the mediation role of cardiorespiratory fitness and waist circumference in the association between muscular strength and cardiometabolic risk. A cross-sectional study involved first-year college students (n = 370) from a Spanish public university was performed. We measured weight, height, waist circumference, blood pressure, biochemical variables, maximum handgrip strength assessment, and cardiorespiratory fitness. We calculated handgrip dynamometry/weight and a previously validated cardiometabolic risk index. Analysis of covariance models was conducted to test differences in cardiometabolic risk values across muscular strength, cardiorespiratory fitness, and waist circumference categories, controlling for confounders. Hayes' PROCESS macro was used for the multiple mediation analysis. The relationship between muscular strength and cardiometabolic risk did not remain significant (c' = 1.76 [1.4]; P > .05) in a multiple serial bootstrapped mediation model including cardiorespiratory fitness and waist circumference as mediators when controlling for age and sex. According to the indirect effect, the significant paths in the model mediating this relationship between muscular strength and cardiometabolic risk index were as follows: muscular strength → waist circumference → cardiometabolic risk index (-4.899; 95% CI: -6.690; -3.450) and muscular strength → cardiorespiratory fitness → waist circumference → cardiometabolic risk index (-0.720; 95% CI: -1.316; -0.360). Both cardiorespiratory fitness and waist circumference mediate the association between muscular strength and cardiometabolic risk in young adults. Thus, our results place cardiorespiratory fitness and waist circumference as the main targets of physical activity programmes aimed at preventing cardiometabolic diseases.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".