Effects of physical training on anthropometrics, physical and physiological capacities in individuals with obesity: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Increasing the amount of physical activity is an important strategy for weight loss. This systematic review summarizes recent findings on the effects of physical training on anthropometric characteristics, physical performances and physiological capacities in individuals with overweight and obesity. A systematic literature search strategy was conducted from inception until June 2019 using four electronic databases that identified 2,708 records. After screening for titles, abstracts and full texts, 116 studies were included in our final analysis. Both aerobic (e.g., endurance training) and anaerobic training (e.g., high‐intensity training, resistance training) improved body composition and physical fitness indicators in adults, adolescents and children with obesity (effect size: 0.08 < d < 2.67, trivial to very large). This systematic review suggests that both low‐ and high‐intensity training significantly reduced body weight and fat mass while increasing fat‐free mass in individuals with obesity (effect size: 0.04 <d <3.2, trivial to very large). A significant increase in VO 2max also occurs in individuals with obesity in response to aerobic training or high‐intensity interval training (effect size: 0.13 < d < 6.24, trivial to very large). Further studies are needed to define the optimal combination of training intensity and duration needed to produce the most efficacious results in individuals with obesity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".