Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Little evidence exists on which exercise modality is optimal for obese adolescents. Objective: To determine the effects of aerobic training, resistance training, and combined training on percentage body fat in overweight and obese adolescents. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, parallel-group clinical trial at community-based exercise facilities in Ottawa (Ontario) and Gatineau (Quebec), Canada, among previously inactive postpubertal adolescents aged 14-18 years (Tanner stage IV or V) with body mass index at or above the 95th percentile for age and sex or at or above the 85th percentile plus an additional diabetes mellitus or cardiovascular risk factor. Interventions: After a 4-week run-in period, 304 participants were randomized to the following 4 groups for 22 weeks: aerobic training (n = 75), resistance training (n = 78), combined aerobic and resistance training (n = 75), or nonexercising control (n = 76). All participants received dietary counseling, with a daily energy deficit of 250 kcal. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was percentage body fat measured by magnetic resonance imaging at baseline and 6 months. We hypothesized that aerobic training and resistance training would each yield greater decreases than the control and that combined training would cause greater decreases than aerobic or resistance training alone. Results: Decreases in percentage body fat were −0.3 (95% CI, −0.9 to 0.3) in the control group, −1.1 (95% CI, −1.7 to −0.5) in the aerobic training group (p = .06 vs. controls), and −1.6 (95% CI, −2.2 to −1.0) in the resistance training group (p = .002 vs controls). The −1.4 (95% CI, −2.0 to −0.8) decrease in the combined training group did not differ significantly from that in the aerobic or resistance training group. Waist circumference changes were −0.2 (95% CI, −1.7 to 1.2) cm in the control group, −3.0 (95% CI, −4.4 to −1.6) cm in the aerobic group (p = .006 vs controls), −2.2 (95% CI −3.7 to −0.8) cm in the resistance training group (p = .048 vs controls), and −4.1 (95% CI, −5.5 to −2.7) cm in the combined training group. In per-protocol analyses (> 70% adherence), the combined training group had greater changes in percentage body fat (-2.4, 95% CI, −3.2 to −1.6) vs the aerobic group (-1.2; 95% CI, −2.0 to −0.5; p = .04 vs the combined group) but not the resistance group (-1.6; 95% CI, −2.5 to −0.8). Conclusions and Relevance: Aerobic, resistance, and combined training reduced total body fat and waist circumference in obese adolescents. In more adherent participants, combined training may cause greater decreases than aerobic or resistance training alone.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".