Intensity Dependent Effects of Interval Resistance Training on Myokines and Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Males With Obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To determine the effects of different intensities of interval resistance training (IRT) protocols on the levels of select myokines (decorin, follistatin, myostatin, activin A, transforming growth factor beta-1 [TGF-β1]), and cardiometabolic and anthropometric measures in males with obesity. Methods Forty-four obese males (age: 27.5 ± 9.4 yr.; height: 165.4 ± 2.8 cm; weight: 97.9 ± 2.6 kg and BMI: 35.7 ± 4.3 kg/m 2 ) were randomly assigned to one of four groups (n=11 per group): low-intensity interval resistance training (LIIRT), moderate-intensity interval resistance training (MIIRT), high-intensity interval resistance training (HIIRT) or control (C). The LIIRT group performed 10 exercises in 3 sets of 40% (20 repetitions), the MIIRT group performed 10 exercises in three sets of 60% (13 repetitions), and the HIIRT group performed 10 exercises in three sets of 80% (10 repetitions) of one maximum repetition (1RM), which were followed with active rest of 20% of 1RM and 15 repetitions. The resistance training groups exercised ~70 min per session, 3 days per week, for 12 weeks. Measurements were taken at baseline and after 12 weeks of exercise training. Results Baseline levels of myokines, cardiovascular risk factors, anthropometry, body composition, and cardio-respiratory fitness were not different between the four groups (p>0.05). The group x time interactions for decorin, activin A, follistatin, myostatin, and TGF-β1, total cholesterol (TC), triglyceride (TG), high-density cholesterol (HDL), low-density cholesterol (LDL), anthropometry, body composition, and cardio-respiratory fitness were statistically significant (p<0.05). There were increases in post-test values for decorin, follistatin, HDL (p<0.05) and decreases in TC, TG, TGF-β1, LDL, and myostatin levels in the LIIRT, MIIRT, and HIIRT groups compared to pretest values (p<0.05). Changes in fat mass, VO 2peak, HDL, TG, glucose, activin A, decorin were not significant in LIIRT compared to the control group, while changes in activin A, follistatin, and TFG-β1 levels were greater in HIIRT and MIIRT groups compared to the LIIRT group (p<0.05). Conclusion The LIIRT, MIIRT, and HIIRT protocols all produced beneficial changes in decorin, activin A, follistatin, myostatin, and TGF-β1 levels, and cardiometabolic risk factors, with greater effects from the MIIRT and HIIRT protocols compared to LIIRT.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".