Effects of 2 different prior endurance exercises on whole-body fat oxidation kinetics: light vs. heavy exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the effects of 2 different prior endurance exercises on subsequent whole-body fat oxidation kinetics. Fifteen men performed 2 identical submaximal incremental tests (Incr2) on a cycle ergometer after (i) a ∼40-min submaximal incremental test (Incr1) followed by a 90-min continuous exercise performed at 50% of maximal aerobic power-output and a 1-h rest period (Heavy); and (ii) Incr1 followed by a 2.5-h rest period (Light). Fat oxidation was measured using indirect calorimetry and plotted as a function of exercise intensity during Incr1 and Incr2. A sinusoidal equation, including 3 independent variables (dilatation, symmetry and translation), was used to characterize the fat oxidation kinetics and to determine the intensity (Fat(max)) that elicited the maximal fat oxidation (MFO) during Incr. After the Heavy and Light trials, Fat(max), MFO, and fat oxidation rates were significantly greater during Incr2 than Incr1 (p < 0.001). However, Δ (i.e., Incr2-Incr1) Fat(max), MFO, and fat oxidation rates were greater in the Heavy compared with the Light trial (p < 0.05). The fat oxidation kinetics during Incr2(Heavy) showed a greater dilatation and rightward asymmetry than Incr1(Heavy), whereas only a greater dilatation was observed in Incr2(Light) (p < 0.05). This study showed that although to a lesser extent in the Light trial, both prior exercise sessions led to an increase in Fat(max), MFO, and absolute fat oxidation rates during Incr2, inducing significant changes in the shape of the fat oxidation kinetics.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".