Examining the role of sex on the benefits of muscle‐strengthening activities for people living with obesity: A cross‐sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aims To investigate the correlations between meeting the muscle‐strengthening activities guideline, body fat %, and mortality for individuals living with obesity and to explore if these correlations are moderated by sex. Methods Data from 3915 adults (51.9% women; 48.1% men) living with obesity (body fat % ≥25 for men and ≥35 for women) from two cycles of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES 2003‐04/2005‐06) were analyzed. Muscle‐strengthening activities were self‐reported via a questionnaire, body fat % was measured via Dual Energy X‐ray, and mortality was obtained via administrative data for an average of 10 years. Results 18.7% of men and 15.2% of women living with obesity met the muscle‐strengthening activities guideline ( p = 0.021). Sex was correlated with body fat %; ( β (SE)= 11.34 (0.18); p ≤ 0.001) and risk of mortality (hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) = 0.36 (0.24–0.54); p ≤ 0.001), once adjusted for confounders (weekly aerobic activities, ethnicity, education, household income, smoking, and the sum of chronic conditions). The interaction between sex and meeting the muscle‐strengthening activities guideline was not significantly correlated with the studied outcomes. Conclusion Performing muscle‐strengthening activities a minimum of two times per week does not impact body fat % or risk of mortality (over 10 years) differently in men or women living with obesity.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".