Exercise and Training in Women, Part I: Influence of Gender on Exercise and Training Responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exercise and training responses in women are briefly reviewed. Part I of the paper considers the influence of gender on such responses. The average woman has a smaller inherent aerobic power and less muscular strength than a man, reflecting sociocultural influences, physical size, body composition, and hormonal milieu. Nevertheless, the best-trained women can out-perform sedentary men. The handicap of the average woman is offset by a lighter body mass and a tendency to metabolize fat rather than carbohydrate during exercise. A lack of anabolic hormones may limit training increases of muscle bulk in the female. A low initial fitness may enhance the scope for training tolerance, but it also limits tolerance of conditioning. Nevertheless, women seem less vulnerable than men to exercise-induced sudden death and overtraining. Part II of the review considers the influence of the menstrual cycle and pregnancy upon exercise and training responses. Physical activity programmes for young women should take account of possible pregnancy. Potential dangers to the foetus include an excessive rise of core body temperature, a decrease of maternal blood sugar, and foetal hypoxia. Nevertheless, regular moderate exercise generally has a favourable impact upon pregnancy outcomes.
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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".