Effects of different exercise programs in clinic and functional status of overweight women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present day physical exercise has been indicated as a tool in the prevention of chronic degenerative illness, between them the obesity. In this way, the aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different short duration exercise protocols on body composition, aerobic capacity and muscle strength. 20 women classified with overweight, 28.5 years old in average, 77.77kg body mass and 34.17% of body fat were selected. The participants were randomly divided in the following groups: I) a group that performed 4 weeks of strength, aerobic with bicycle and/or treadmill and circuit training, identified as (FAC, n=10) and II) a group that performed 4 weeks of strength and aerobic training, exclusively composed by bicycle and/or treadmill, identified by (FA; n=10). The evaluation before the beginning of the exercise training served as the control baseline, composing respectively the control FAC group (ConFAC, n=10) and the control FA group (ConFA, n=10). Body fat was measured by bioelectrical impedance. Strength training loads were determined by load repetitions test and VO2max was estimated by Canadian Aerobic Fitness Test 1.600 meters walking protocol. Both groups showed non significant reductions in the variables: body mass, body fat, fat mass, waist circumference, hip circumference, waist hip ratio and fat free mass maintenance. However, VO2max significant statistical increase was observed only for FAC group. The exercised groups showed increase in strength production capacity, (p≤0.05). These results indicate that, even a short training period (4 weeks) induce positive adaptations in functional status of this population.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".