↓ Skip to main content

Metabolic and Functional Profile of Premenopausal Women With Metabolic Syndrome After Training With Elastics as Compared to Free Weights

Overview of attention for article published in Biological Research For Nursing, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Metabolic and Functional Profile of Premenopausal Women With Metabolic Syndrome After Training With Elastics as Compared to Free Weights
Published in
Biological Research For Nursing, November 2016
DOI 10.1177/1099800416674307
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jorge Flandez, Noelia Belando, Pedro Gargallo, Julio Fernández-Garrido, Ronald A. Vargas-Foitzick, Jose Devis-Devis, Juan C. Colado

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of a strength training program (STP) using free weights (FW) versus elastic tubing (ET) in 62 premenopausal, sedentary women diagnosed with metabolic syndrome (MS). Participants were randomly assigned to the FW or ET experimental group (EG) or a control group whose members remained sedentary. Members of each EG followed their assigned STP for 12 weeks, and biomarkers (BMs) related to MS and motor function (MF) parameters were evaluated. Both EGs showed a significant reduction in C-reactive protein level and a positive trend in the other BMs. Almost all MF parameters increased significantly in both EGs. No positive changes were found in the CG. These results indicate that the implementation of an STP, with either FW or ET, improves both metabolic health and MF and should be considered part of the basic approach to health care in women.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 1%
Unknown 73 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 14%
Researcher 6 8%
Professor 6 8%
Student > Master 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 31 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 13 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 8%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 33 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 November 2016.
All research outputs
#18,480,433
of 22,899,952 outputs
Outputs from Biological Research For Nursing
#333
of 464 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,445
of 311,692 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biological Research For Nursing
#8
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,899,952 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 464 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 311,692 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.