Effects of Intense and Prolonged Exercise on Insulin Sensitivity and Glycogen Metabolism in Hypertensive Subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The information that insulin sensitivity and glycogen synthesis are reduced in hypertension arises primarily from studies using insulin infusions. Whether glycogen metabolism is actually altered in a physiological condition, such as during and after prolonged exercise, is currently unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: To examine this issue, 9 hypertensive and 11 normotensive subjects were evaluated on a rest day and after intense and prolonged exercise on a separate day. Insulin sensitivity and hemodynamic variables were measured on both days. On the exercise day, whole-body substrate utilization was assessed and muscle biopsies were taken in the leg at baseline, immediately after exercise, and 2.5 and 4 hours after exercise. Insulin sensitivity at rest was lower in hypertensive than normotensive subjects (P<0.05) and increased after exercise in normotensive (P<0.01) but not in hypertensive (P=NS) subjects. Leg blood flow increased after exercise in both groups but to a lesser extent in hypertensive than normotensive subjects. Baseline glycogen content and maximal glycogen synthase activity were higher in hypertensive than normotensive subjects (P<0.001). Glycogen concentration decreased relatively less (-35 versus -66%) and returned to baseline levels faster in hypertensive subjects after exercise. Hypertensive subjects used approximately 40% less carbohydrates during exercise (P<0.001) at the expense of greater free fatty acid oxidation. CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that increased intramuscular glycogen storage and resynthesis in hypertension are independent of blood flow and may represent compensatory mechanisms for the reduced insulin sensitivity and carbohydrate metabolism in this condition.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".