Reduced exercise capacity for muscle mass in adolescents living with obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Adolescents living with obesity (AlwO) can have limited exercise capacity. Exercise capacity can be predicted by a 2-factor model comprising lung function and leg muscle function, but no study has looked at cycling leg muscle function and its contribution to cycling exercise capacity in AlwO. Methods 22 nonobese adolescents and 22 AlwO (BMI>95 percentile) were studied. Anthropometry, body composition (DEXA), spirometry, 30-sec isokinetic work capacity, and maximal exercise (cycle ergometry) were measured. Results AlwO had greater lean leg mass (LLM) (14.8±4.1 vs 21.0±4.3 kg, Con vs AlwO p<0.001). Lung function did not differ, although FEV 1 trended higher in AlwO (101.0±13.1 vs 107.9±12.7 percent predicted, p=0.08). Leg 30-second work output did not differ in absolute terms or per allometrically scaled LLM. Peak oxygen consumption did not differ between the groups in absolute terms or as percent predicted values (78.5±15.4 vs 82.1±16.5 percent predicted), but was lower in AlwO when expressed per scaled kg of LLM. Peak oxygen consumption related to both lung function and 30-second work capacity, with no observed group effect. 30-second leg work capacity related to the scaled muscle mass, with a small group effect. There was some correlation between leg work capacity and time spent in moderate to vigorous physical activity in AlwO (r s =0.39, p=0.07). Conclusion AlwO have larger LLM and preserved exercise capacity, when expressed as percentage of predicted, but not per allometrically scaled LLM. Increasing time spent in moderate to vigorous activity may benefit AlwO.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".