Separate and combined relationships for cardiorespiratory fitness and muscular strength with visceral fat and insulin sensitivity in adolescents with obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the separate and combined associations for cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and muscular strength (MS) with total and regional fat, and insulin sensitivity (IS) in 204 adolescents (BMI ≥85th percentile, 12–18 years) at UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh. CRF was measured by maximum oxygen consumption during a graded treadmill test. MS was quantified by combining 1-repetition maximum test for the leg and bench press. Participants were stratified as having either high or low CRF and MS based on sex-specific median split. Both high CRF and high MS groups had lower (P < 0.05) total fat after adjustment for sex, Tanner stage and ethnicity than the low CRF and MS groups (Difference: 6.6, 2.6–9.6% and 5.4, 2.4–8.3%, respectively). High CRF, but not high MS, had lower visceral (67.5 versus 77.9 cm2, P < 0.01) and intermuscular fat (3.6 versus 4.0 kg, P = 0.01) than the low CRF groups. Differences by CRF remained significant after adjustment for MS. High CRF, but not high MS, was associated (P < 0.05) with lower fasting glucose and higher IS after accounting for sex, Tanner stage and ethnicity than the low CRF group, and high CRF remained associated with these markers after adjustment for MS. High CRF is associated with lower total and regional fat, and higher IS after adjustment for MS. Novelty: CRF is associated with lower total fat, visceral and intermuscular fat, and higher insulin sensitivity adjusting for muscular strength. Muscular strength is not associated with regional body fat and insulin sensitivity after accounting for CRF.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".