Aerobic and Resistance Training Attenuate Differently Knee Joint Damage Caused by a High-Fat–High-Sucrose Diet in a Rat Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Obesity and associated low-level local systemic inflammation have been linked to an increased rate of developing knee osteoarthritis (OA). Aerobic exercise has been shown to protect the knee from obesity-induced joint damage. The aims of this study were to determine (1) if resistance training provides beneficial metabolic effects similar to those previously observed with aerobic training in rats consuming a high-fat/high-sucrose (HFS) diet and (2) if these metabolic effects mitigate knee OA in a diet-induced obesity model in rats. DESIGN: Twelve-week-old Sprague-Dawley rats were randomized into 4 groups: (1) a group fed an HFS diet subjected to aerobic exercise (HFS+Aer), (2) a group fed an HFS diet subjected to resistance exercise (HFS+Res), (3) a group fed an HFS diet with no exercise (HFS+Sed), and (4) a chow-fed sedentary control group (Chow+Sed). HFS+Sed animals were heavier and had greater body fat, higher levels of triglycerides and total cholesterol, and more joint damage than Chow+Sed animals. RESULTS: The HFS+Res group had higher body mass and body fat than Chow+Sed animals and higher OA scores than animals from the HFS+Aer group. Severe bone lesions were observed in the HFS+Sed and Chow+Sed animals at age 24 weeks, but not in the HFS+Res and HFS+Aer group animals. CONCLOSION: In summary, aerobic training provided better protection against knee joint OA than resistance training in this rat model of HFS-diet-induced obesity. Exposing rats to exercise, either aerobic or resistance training, had a protective effect against the severe bone lesions observed in the nonexercised rats.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".