Effects of Performing Resistance Exercise Before Versus After Aerobic Exercise on Glycemia in Type 1 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of exercise order on acute glycemic responses in individuals with type 1 diabetes performing both aerobic and resistance exercise in the same session. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Twelve physically active individuals with type 1 diabetes (HbA(1c) 7.1 ± 1.0%) performed aerobic exercise (45 min of running at 60% V(O(2peak))) before 45 min of resistance training (three sets of eight, seven different exercises) (AR) or performed the resistance exercise before aerobic exercise (RA). Plasma glucose was measured during exercise and for 60 min after exercise. Interstitial glucose was measured by continuous glucose monitoring 24 h before, during, and 24 h after exercise. RESULTS: Significant declines in blood glucose levels were seen in AR but not in RA throughout the first exercise modality, resulting in higher glucose levels in RA (AR = 5.5 ± 0.7, RA = 9.2 ± 1.2 mmol/L, P = 0.006 after 45 min of exercise). Glucose subsequently decreased in RA and increased in AR over the course of the second 45-min exercise bout, resulting in levels that were not significantly different by the end of exercise (AR = 7.5 ± 0.8, RA = 6.9 ± 1.0 mmol/L, P = 0.436). Although there were no differences in frequency of postexercise hypoglycemia, the duration (105 vs. 48 min) and severity (area under the curve 112 vs. 59 units ⋅ min) of hypoglycemia were nonsignificantly greater after AR compared with RA. CONCLUSIONS: Performing resistance exercise before aerobic exercise improves glycemic stability throughout exercise and reduces the duration and severity of postexercise hypoglycemia for individuals with type 1 diabetes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".