Effects of alternate day calorie restriction and exercise on cardio-metabolic risk factors in overweight and obese adults: an exploratory randomized controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has been recognized that alternate day calorie restriction (ADCR) or exercise has positive effects on cardio-metabolic risk factors. It is unclear whether the combined effect of ADCR and exercise (aerobic + resistance training) influences risk. We investigated effects of an 8-week ADCR and exercise program (aerobic + resistance training) on cardio-metabolic risk factors in overweight and obese adults. METHODS: This study randomized 45 overweight or obese but healthy adults (F = 26, M = 19; aged about 32 to 40 years) into 4 groups: ADCR (n = 13), exercise (n = 10), exercise plus ADCR (n = 12), and control (n = 10) for 8 weeks. Body composition, blood lipids profile, and insulin resistance were measured. The intention to treat (ITT) method was used to analyze all participants that were randomized. RESULTS: , p < 0.01; - 4.1 ± 3.9 cm, p < 0.01; - 2.7 ± 2.0 kg, p < 0.01; - 2. 5 ± 2.2%, p < 0.01). Insulin, glucose, homeostasis model assessment insulin resistance and triglyceride (- 2.9 ± 4.1 μIU/ml, p < 0.05; - 10.9 ± 16.9 mg/dl, p < 0.05; - 0.9 ± 1.3, p < 0.05; - 43.8 ± 41.9 mg/dl, p < 0.01) decreased in the exercise plus ADCR group only. CONCLUSIONS: ADCR and exercise both proved to be beneficial, but the combined intervention was most effective at inducing beneficial changes in body weight, body composition, glucose, insulin, insulin resistance and triglyceride in overweight and obese adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03652532 , Registered August 28, 2018, 'retrospectively registered'.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".