Greater glycemic control following low-load, high-repetition resistance exercise compared with moderate-intensity continuous exercise in males and females: a randomized control trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exercise has long been known for its beneficial effects on insulin sensitivity (IS) and glucose handling with both moderate-intensity continuous (MIC) exercise and resistance exercise (RE) inducing beneficial effects. In recent years, low-load, high-repetition (LLHR) RE has emerged as a strategy to increase muscle mass and strength to levels similar to traditional RE; however, the effects of LLHR RE on glucose handling has yet to be investigated. The purpose of this trial was to compare the acute effects of LLHR RE to MIC exercise on post-exercise glycemic control and insulin sensitivity in males and females. Twenty-four ( n = 12/sex) participants completed acute bouts of MIC exercise (30 min at 65% V̇O₂ peak ) and LLHR (3 circuits, 6 exercises/circuit, 25–35 repetitions/exercise/circuit) matched for time with muscle biopsies immediately pre and post exercise and an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) 90 min following exercise. Blood glucose concentrations ( p = 0.002, η p 2 = 0.37), glucose AUC ( p = 0.002, η p 2 = 0.35) and max glucose concentration ( p = 0.003, η p 2 = 0.34) were lower during the post exercise OGTT following LLHR RE compared to MIC exercise. There was a main effect of trial on TBC1D1 Ser 237 phosphorylation ( p = 0.04, η p 2 = 0.19) such that it was greater following MIC exercise compared to LLHR RE. Furthermore, phosphorylated ACC Ser 79 increased following MIC exercise with no change following LLHR RE ( p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.50). Phosphorylation of PTEN Ser 380 was greater in males than females during LLHR RE ( p = 0.01, η p 2 = 0.27). These findings suggest that LLHR RE is a feasible exercise modality to improve post-exercise glycemic control in both males and females. Trial registration number: NCT06217679.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".