Epinephrine infusion during moderate intensity exercise increases glucose production and uptake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The glucoregulatory response to intense exercise [IE, >80% maximum O(2) uptake (VO(2 max))] comprises a marked increment in glucose production (R(a)) and a lesser increment in glucose uptake (R(d)), resulting in hyperglycemia. The R(a) correlates with plasma catecholamines but not with the glucagon-to-insulin (IRG/IRI) ratio. If epinephrine (Epi) infusion during moderate exercise were able to markedly stimulate R(a), this would support an important role for the catecholamines' response in IE. Seven fit male subjects (26 +/- 2 yr, body mass index 23 +/- 0.5 kg/m(2), VO(2 max) 65 +/- 5 ml x kg(-1) x min(-1)) underwent 40 min of postabsorptive cycle ergometer exercise (145 +/- 14 W) once without [control (CON)] and once with Epi infusion [EPI (0.1 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1))] from 30 to 40 min. Epi levels reached 9.4 +/- 0.8 nM (20x rest, 10x CON). R(a) increased approximately 70% to 3.75 +/- 0.53 in CON but to 8.57 +/- 0.58 mg x kg(-1) x min(-1) in EPI (P < 0.001). Increments in R(a) and Epi correlated (r(2) = 0.923, P </= 0.01). In EPI, peak R(d) (5.55 +/- 0.54 vs. 3.38 +/- 0.46 mg x kg(-1) x min(-1), P = 0.006) and glucose metabolic clearance rate (MCR, P = 0.018) were higher. The R(a)-to-R(d) imbalance in EPI caused hyperglycemia (7.12 +/- 0.22 vs. 5.59 +/- 0.22 mM, P = 0.001) until minute 60 of recovery. A small and late IRG/IRI increase (P = 0.015 vs. CON) could not account for the R(a) increase. Norepinephrine (approximately 4x increase at peak) did not differ between EPI and CON. Thus Epi infusion during moderate exercise led to increments in R(a) and R(d) and caused rises of plasma glucose, lactate, and respiratory exchange ratio in fit individuals, supporting a regulatory role for Epi in IE. Epi's effects on R(d) and MCR during exercise may differ from its effects at rest.
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 | 0.000 | 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".