Impact of Physical Training Programs on Physical Fitness in People With Class II and III Obesity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical training, regardless of the presence of concurrent weight loss, provides numerous health benefits for individuals who are overweight and obese and have or are at risk for cardiovascular disease. PURPOSE: The purpose of this review was to identify different types of physical training programs (aerobic, resistance, or combined), with or without counseling/diet modifications, and their impact on physical fitness in individuals who have class II and III obesity. DATA SOURCES: Medline and Medline In-Process, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, LILACS, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PEDro, and PubMed were searched up to June 2017. STUDY SELECTION: This review had the following inclusion criteria: body mass index of ≥35 kg/m2 and age 18 years or older; supervised physical training program; randomized controlled trial; physical fitness outcome (muscular strength, muscular endurance, cardiovascular endurance, and/or flexibility); in English or Portuguese; and available full-text article. DATA EXTRACTION: Three reviewers independently extracted data, assessed study risk of bias using the Cochrane tool, and discussed disagreements until consensus was reached. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of the 9460 identified articles, 26 were included and 8 were used in a meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed improvements in walking speed and maximal oxygen uptake but not knee extension strength in the intervention groups. The Cochrane risk-of-bias score indicated that the majority of the data were from randomized controlled trials with a low or unclear risk of bias. LIMITATIONS: The large variability of outcomes and interventions made comparisons difficult. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of aerobic exercise and resistance exercise, in addition to diet modifications, may improve cardiovascular and muscular endurance in individuals with class II and III obesity. However, conclusions must be interpreted with caution because of the heterogeneity in interventions and outcome measures among the studies and an unclear risk of bias in several studies.
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 | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".