IGF‐I and IGFBP-3 during Continuous and Interval Exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to compare changes in circulating levels of total IGF-I and IGFBP-3 during continuous, moderate-intensity exercise (CE) and high-intensity interval exercise (IE) of equal duration. Ten healthy males completed 2 exercise sessions and a resting control session (R) in random order. The CE was 20 minutes of cycling at 60 - 65 % of V.O(2max). During IE, subjects cycled at 80 - 85 % of V.O(2max) for 1 minute followed by 40 seconds of active recovery, with the cycle repeated for a total of 20 minutes. In each session blood samples were drawn at - 10, 0, 5, 10, 20 and 30 minutes. Both IGF-I and IGFBP-3 increased during exercise (p < 0.05) and repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant effect for session (IE, CE > R, p < 0.05). Area under the curve (AUC) analyses showed no difference in IGF-I between sessions, however, the IGFBP-3 AUC was significantly greater during IE than R (p < 0.05). These results suggest interval and continuous exercise will result in similar changes in circulating IGF-I and IGFBP-3. This could be beneficial to individuals who can exercise longer and at a higher intensity in intervals than would be possible using a continuous protocol.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".