Long-Term Improvement in Cardiorespiratory Fitness Ameliorates Insulin Sensitivity beyond Changes in Visceral/Ectopic Fat among Men with Visceral Obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The SYNERGIE study documented the effects on cardiometabolic risk (CMR) indices of a 1-year lifestyle intervention targeting physical activity (PA) and diet followed by a 2-year maintenance period in men with visceral obesity. Improvements in CMR markers and a decrease in low-attenuation muscle (LAM) area were observed after 1 year. Despite a rebound in visceral adipose tissue (VAT) during the maintenance period, insulin resistance (IR) improved. We tested the hypothesis that variations in cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and LAM could explain the long-term improvement in IR. A health (n = 88; mean age 49.0 ± 8.2 years) and fitness (n = 72) evaluation was performed at 0, 1, and 3 years. Participants were classified into two groups based on their CRF response over the maintenance period (worsening: CRF− vs. maintenance/improvement: CRF+). During the maintenance period, changes in the psoas and core LAM areas correlated with changes in IR (r = 0.27; p < 0.05 and r = 0.34; p < 0.005) and changes in CRF (r = −0.31; p < 0.01 and r = −0.30; p < 0.05). IR improved in the CRF+ group (p < 0.05) but remained stable in the CRF− group. Men in the CRF+ group regained half of the changes in VAT volume and LAM at the psoas and mid-thigh compared to the CRF− group (p < 0.05). These results support the importance of targeting VAT and CRF/PA for the long-term management of CMR in men with visceral obesity.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".