Reduced exercise capacity for muscle mass in adolescents living with obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 Twenty‐two nonobese adolescents and 22 AlwO (BMI > 95 percentile) were studied. Anthropometry, body composition (dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry), spirometry, 30‐s isokinetic work capacity, and maximal exercise (cycle ergometry) were measured. Results AlwO had greater total body mass, lean body mass, and lean leg mass (LLM). Lung function trended higher in AlwO. Leg 30‐s work 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 (79.59 ± 14.6 vs. 82.3 ± 11.2% predicted control versus ALwO) but was lower in AlwO when expressed per kg body mass, kg lean body mass, scaled lean body mass, and LLM. Peak oxygen consumption related to both lung function and 30‐s work, with no observed group effect. 30‐s leg work related to the scaled LLM, with a small group effect. There was some correlation between leg work and time spent in moderate to vigorous physical activity in AlwO ( r s = 0.39, p = .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 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".