Effects of Nine-Month Lifestyle Intervention on Cardiometabolic Risk Factors: Sex Differences in Obese Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limited data is available on the sex differences and individual responses of cardiometabolic parameters adjusted with potential confounders (i.e. sex, age, baseline values) after a longer term Mediterranean diet (MedD) and high intensity interval training (HIIT) in obese subjects. The objective of this study was to compare the effects of nine-month MedD counseling and supervised HIIT on cardiometabolic risk factors and individual responses in obese women (n = 99) and obese men (n = 35). Body composition (body mass, fat mass, lean body mass, waist circumference), cardiorespiratory fitness (METs), and cardiometabolic risk factors (blood pressure, blood sample variables) were measured at baseline and after nine months of a program combining MedD and HIIT two to three times a week. When adjusted with sex, age, and baseline values, obese women similarly improved their body composition, METs, and cardiometabolic risk factors vs. obese men. The proportion of responders according to clinical cutoff levels were the same in obese women and men. A longer MedD and HIIT intervention similarly improves body composition, cardiometabolic risk factors, and individual responses in obese women and men, even after adjustment of confounders (sex, age, baseline value).
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".