Effects of Exercise on Resting Metabolic Rate in Adolescents with Overweight and Obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: We examined the effects of exercise training on resting metabolic rate (RMR), and whether changes in body composition are associated with changes in RMR in adolescents with overweight and obesity. Methods: One hundred forty adolescents (12–18 years, BMI ≥85th percentile) participated in randomized exercise trials (3–6 months) at UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh (18 control, 51 aerobic, 50 resistance, and 21 combined aerobic and resistance exercise). All participants had RMR assessments by indirect calorimetry after a 10–12 hour overnight fast, and body composition by magnetic resonance imaging and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Results: There were no significant changes in RMR (kcal/day) between exercise groups vs. controls ( p > 0.05). All exercise groups decreased visceral fat (−0.2 ± 0.02 kg; p < 0.05) compared to control. Increases in fat-free mass (FFM) were only seen in the combined group (2.3 ± 0.4 kg; p < 0.05), whereas increases in skeletal muscle mass were observed in both resistance (1.2 ± 0.2 kg; p < 0.05) and combined (1.5 ± 0.3 kg; p < 0.05) groups vs. control. Change in FFM, but not fat mass (FM), visceral fat, or skeletal muscle mass ( p > 0.05), was a significant determinant of changes in RMR, independent of exercise modality ( p = 0.04). Conclusion: Although exercise modality was not associated with changes in RMR, change in FFM, but not skeletal muscle or FM, was a significant correlate of changes in RMR in adolescents with overweight and obesity. Clinicaltrials.gov registration numbers: NCT00739180, NCT01323088, NCT01938950.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".