Sedentary Lifestyle Attenuates Positive Metabolic Effect of Regular Physical Exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The aim of the study was to evaluate the influence of the duration of sedentary time on blood lipids and anthropometric parameters in people practicing resistance training in leisure time. Methods: Our study included 213 subjects without any history of cardiovascular disease. The target group (169 subjects) had at least two 90-min sessions of resistance training per week for at least 12 months prior to study commencing. The target group was divided into four groups according to their sitting time per week. There were no significant differences in physical activity between groups. The control group included 44 subjects without a history of cardiovascular diseases and without any regular physical activity. Anthropometric parameters, body composition, blood pressure, blood lipids and glucose levels were assessed. The International Questionnaire on long Physical Activity was used to assess physical activity and sedentary time. IBM ® SPSS ® Statistics 19 was used for statistical analysis. Results: Patients were divided into four groups according to their sitting time. In the first group, the median of sitting time of 21.05 (14.00 - 21.25) h per week was spent seated; in the second group, 28.0 h (25.0 - 28.7); in the third group, 38.5 h (35.0 - 42.0) and in the fourth group, 56 h (49.0 - 56.7). After adjustment for age, sex and physical activity level, we observed a statistically significant association between sitting time and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-cholesterol) and blood glucose levels. HDL-cholesterol progressively decreased with a prolonged sitting time (first group: 1.62 (1.45 - 1.75) mmol/L; fourth group: 1.31 (1.12 - 1.38) mmol/L) and blood glucose level increased (first group: 4.27 (3.90 - 4.63) mmol/L; fourth group: 4.63 (4.24 - 5.26) mmol/L). Conclusions: Even in the subjects who are engaged in an appropriate time of resistance training, the total sitting time may exceed 56 h per week and attenuates positive effects of resistance training on HDL-cholesterol and blood glucose level. J Endocrinol Metab. 2022;12(2):59-65 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jem797
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) | 0.003 | 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".