Feasibility And Health Changes From Following The Physical Activity And Eating Guidelines In Women: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The effects of exercise and diet interventions on women's health are understudied. This study’s objective was to determine the feasibility and the impact of following guidelines-based physical activity and healthy eating recommendations on women’s health. METHODS: Sedentary women (n = 30; 53 ± 13 yrs; 28.7 ± 6 kg/m2) with moderate-to-high diabetes risk (CANRISK) were randomized into an exercise-only (EX; n = 12), exercise+diet (EX+D; n = 8) or control stretching (CON; n = 10) intervention for 6 weeks. The hybrid (in-person+virtual+home-based) intervention followed Canadian guidelines in diet and physical activity (150 min/wk MVPA; 2x/wk strenght training). Diet quality (Health Eating Food Index), body mass, carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity, brachial artery flow-mediated dilation, insulin resistance (Matsuda index), cardiorespiratory fitness (maximal oxygen uptake), anxiety and depression symptoms (General Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale and Beck Depression Inventory) were assessed at baseline and following the intervention. Adherence was considered as >80% of attendance to strength or prescribed min/wk for aerobic training. Intervention enjoyability was assessed using a Likert scale ranging from 1-5. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA to compare the changes in the health outcomes across the groups. RESULTS: Adherence rates for strength and aerobic exercise were 90% and 75%, respectively. In the intervention groups (EX + EX+D), 95% of participants (in-person intervention), 85% (virtual intervention), and 65% (home-based intervention) strongly agreed or agreed that the intervention was enjoyable (Likert scale scores 4-5). After the intervention, 75% of participants expressed interest in continuing exercise. There was no effect of intervention or time on cardiometabolic or mental health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: A short term exercise, with or without a diet quality intervention, was not enough to significantly improve cardiometabolic or mental health metrics in sedentary women. However, the intervention was feasible and enjoyable for pre- and post-menopause woman. Interventions longer than 6 weeks may be needed to detect changes on these key health outcomes. This pilot study is currently being expanded among a larger sample (n = 180) and a longer intervention time (24 wks).
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 | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".