Does type 2 diabetes duration influence the effectiveness of an aerobic exercise intervention: Results from the INTENSITY study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies suggest that longer durations of T2DM increase the risk of T2DM complications and premature mortality. However, whether T2DM duration impacts the efficacy of an aerobic exercise intervention is unclear. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was: 1) to compare changes in body composition, cardiorespiratory fitness, and glycemia between individuals with short- and long-duration T2DM after aerobic exercise and 2) to determine whether these changes were associated with changes in glycemia by T2DM duration. METHODS: A secondary analysis of the INTENSITY study (NCT03787836), including thirty-four adults (≥19 years) with T2DM who participated in 28 weeks of aerobic exercise training for 150 minutes per week at a moderate-to-vigorous intensity (4.5 to 6.0 metabolic equivalents (METs)). Using pre-established cut-points, participants were categorized into two groups 1) short-duration T2DM (<5 years) or 2) long-duration T2DM (≥5 years). Glycemia was measured by glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), body composition by BodPod, and cardiorespiratory fitness by a measure of peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak). All measurements were performed at baseline, 16 weeks, and 28 weeks. RESULTS: Participants in the short-duration T2DM group experienced decreases in fat mass (kg) (p = 0.03), HbA1c (p = 0.05), and an increased relative VO2peak (p = 0.01). Those with long-duration T2DM experienced decreases in fat mass (kg) (p = 0.02) and HbA1c (p <0.001) and increased fat-free mass (p = 0.02). No significant differences were observed between groups in any outcomes. Changes in fat mass (r = 0.54, p = 0.02), and body fat percentage (r = 0.50, p = 0.02) were significantly associated with the change in HbA1c in those with a long-duration T2DM only. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest T2DM duration did not differently impact the efficacy of a 28-week aerobic exercise intervention. However, changes in body composition were associated with better glycemia in individuals with longer T2DM duration only.
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 | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".