Oxidation rate of exogenous carbohydrate during exercise is higher in boys than in men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine whether the relative utilization of exogenous carbohydrate (CHO(exo)) differs between children and adults, substrate utilization during 60 min of cycling at 70% peak O(2) uptake was studied in 12 pre- and early pubertal boys (9.8 +/- 0.1 yr) and 10 men (22.1 +/- 0.5 yr) on two occasions. Subjects consumed either a placebo or a (13)C-enriched 6% CHO(exo) beverage (total volume per trial: 24 ml/kg). Substrate utilization was calculated for the final 30 min of exercise. During both trials, total fat oxidation was higher (5.4 +/- 0.5 vs. 3.0 +/- 0.4 mg x kg(-1) x min(-1), P < 0.001) and total CHO oxidation lower (27.4 +/- 1.5 vs. 34.8 +/- 1.2 mg x kg(-1) x min(-1), P < 0.001) in boys than in men, respectively. During the CHO(exo) trial, CHO(exo) oxidation was higher (P < 0.001) in boys (8.8 +/- 0.5 mg x kg(-1) x min(-1)) than in men (6.2 +/- 0.5 mg x kg(-1) x min(-1)) and provided a greater (P < 0.001) relative proportion of total energy in boys (21.8 +/- 1.4%) than in men (14.6 +/- 0.9%). These results suggest that, although endogenous CHO utilization during exercise is lower, the relative oxidation of ingested CHO is considerably higher in boys than in men. The greater reliance on CHO(exo) in boys may be important in preserving endogenous fuels and may be related to pubertal status.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".