The Resistance Exercise in Already Active Diabetic Individuals (READI) Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Resistance exercise training (strength training) and aerobic exercise training are both recommended for people with type 1 diabetes, but it is unknown whether adding resistance exercise provides incremental benefits in people with this condition who already perform aerobic exercise regularly. OBJECTIVE: This work aimed to evaluate the incremental effect of resistance training on glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fitness, body composition, and cardiometabolic risk factors in aerobically active people with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: The Resistance Exercise in Already-active Diabetic Individuals (READI) trial (NCT00410436) was a 4-center, randomized, parallel-group trial. After a 5-week run-in period with diabetes management optimization, 131 aerobically active individuals with type 1 diabetes were randomly assigned to resistance exercise (n = 71, intervention-INT) or control (n = 60, CON) for 22 additional weeks. Both groups maintained their aerobic activities and were provided dietary counseling throughout. Exercise training was 3 times per week at community-based facilities. The primary outcome was HbA1c, and secondary outcomes included fitness (peak oxygen consumption, muscle strength), body composition (anthropometrics, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, computed tomography), and cardiometabolic risk markers (lipids, apolipoproteins). Assessors were blinded to group allocation. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in HbA1c change between INT and CON. Declines in HbA1c (INT: 7.75 ± 0.10% [61.2 ± 1.1 mmol/mol] to 7.55 ± 0.10% [59 ± 1.1 mmol/mol]; CON: 7.70 ± 0.11% [60.7 ± 1.2 mmol/mol] to 7.57 ± 0.11% [59.6 ± 1.3 mmol/mol]; intergroup difference in change -0.07 [95% CI, -0.31 to 0.18]). Waist circumference decreased more in INT than CON after 6 months (P = .02). Muscular strength increased more in INT than in CON (P < .001). There were no intergroup differences in hypoglycemia or any other variables. CONCLUSION: Adding resistance training did not affect glycemia, but it increased strength and reduced waist circumference, in aerobically active individuals with type 1 diabetes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".