Effects of exercise modality on body composition and cardiovascular disease risk factors in adolescents with obesity: a randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared the effects of aerobic exercise, resistance exercise, and combined aerobic and resistance exercise on total, regional subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) and visceral AT (VAT), skeletal muscle (SM), and biomarkers of cardiovascular disease in adolescents. Adolescents with overweight/obesity (N = 118; body mass index ≥ 85th percentile; age, 12–17 years) were randomized to 1 of the following groups for 6 months (3 days/week, 180 min/week): aerobic exercise (n = 38), resistance exercise (n = 40), or combined aerobic and resistance exercise (n = 40). After accounting for age, sex, and baseline value, there was a greater (P < 0.05) reduction in body weight in the aerobic exercise group compared with the resistance exercise group and the combined groups. There were reductions (P < 0.05) in total and regional SAT within the aerobic exercise group only, and the reductions in lower-body SAT were greater (P = 0.02) than the combined group. All groups had reductions (P < 0.01) in VAT, with no group differences. There were significant increases in total and regional SM mass in the resistance exercise and combined group, and not in the aerobic exercise group. Although all exercise modalities are effective in reducing VAT, aerobic exercise is superior at reducing total and regional SAT, but inferior for increasing SM in adolescents with obesity. Despite reductions in VAT, carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity and carotid intima-media thickness did not improve with either exercise. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01938950. Novelty Regular exercise (180 min/week) is associated with reductions in visceral fat independent of exercise modality. Resistance exercise alone and combined resistance and aerobic exercise are similarly effective in increasing SM 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".