Exercise Distributed across Day and Night Does Not Alter Circadian Period in Humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In rodents, increased activity due to running-wheel access is associated with a change in observed circadian period. In humans, exposure to exercise has failed to demonstrate similar effects on period. Methodological issues with prior studies such as light exposure during exercise, length of study, and method of measuring period confounded those evaluations of the effect of exercise on period in humans. In the present experiment, the authors examined the effect of exercise on period in 8 subjects using a 44-day within-subjects inpatient study. They used a 20-h forced desynchrony protocol, in which subjects were exposed to exercise across circadian phases under dim light conditions. Exercise consisted of three 45-min sessions per wake period on an ergometer. Target exercise intensity was ~65% of maximal heart rate. Intrinsic circadian period was measured using both core body temperature and hourly plasma melatonin samples. Consistent with previous reports, the authors find no effect of exercise on endogenous circadian period as measured by either core body temperature or melatonin. Exercise distributed across biological day and night does not appear to affect circadian period.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".