Higher baseline fat oxidation promotes gynoid fat mobilization in response to a 12-week exercise intervention in sedentary, obese black South African women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This 12-week exercise intervention study assessed changes in cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), energy expenditure (EE), and substrate utilisation at rest and during exercise in obese, black South African (SA) women and explored associations with changes in body composition. Black SA women (body mass index: 30–40 kg·m−2, age: 20–35 years) were randomised into control (CTL; n = 15, maintaining usual activity) or exercise (EXE; n = 20; 12 weeks, 4 days·week−1, 40–60 min·day−1 at >70% peak heart rate) groups. Pre- and post-intervention testing included peak oxygen consumption, resting and steady state (50% peak oxygen consumption) EE, respiratory exchange, and body composition (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry). Dietary intake (4-day) and daily step-count (ActivPAL, activPAL3c; PAL Technologies Ltd, Glasgow, UK) was collected at pre-testing and at 4, 8, and 12 weeks. EXE increased peak oxygen consumption (24.9 ± 2.4 to 27.6 ± 3.4 mL·min−1·kg−1; p < 0.001) and steady state fat oxidation rates (7.5 ± 2.5 to 9.0 ± 2.7 mg·min−1·kg−1 fat-free soft tissue mass; p = 0.003) (same relative exercise intensity). CTL remained unchanged (p > 0.05). EXE reduced proportional gynoid fat mass (percentage total fat mass, p = 0.002). Baseline resting carbohydrate oxidation rates (p = 0.036) and steady state fat oxidation rates (p = 0.021) explained 60.6% of the variability in Δgynoid fat mass (p < 0.001) in EXE. This 12-week exercise intervention improved CRF and steady state fat oxidation rates. Greater reliance on fat oxidation at baseline promoted proportional reductions in gynoid, not visceral, fat mass in response to exercise training. Novelty Combined exercise training in obese black South African women increased cardiorespiratory fitness and rates of fat oxidation during steady state exercise. Exercise training reduced proportional gynoid, not visceral, fat, potentially representing an ethnic/sex-specific response. Baseline substrate utilisation (resting and steady state exercise (50% peak oxygen uptake)) predicted changes in gynoid fat mass.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".