Fat oxidation rate and the exercise intensity that elicits maximal fat oxidation decreases with pubertal status in young male subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The range of exercise intensities that elicit high fat oxidation rates (FOR) in youth and the influence of pubertal status on peak FOR are unknown. In a longitudinal design, we compared FOR over a range of exercise intensities in a small cohort of developing prepubertal male subjects. Five boys all at Tanner stage 1 (ages 11-12 yr) and nine men (ages 20-26 yr) underwent an incremental cycle ergometry test to volitional exhaustion. FOR curves were determined from indirect calorimetry during the final 30 s of each increment. The same protocol was duplicated annually in the boys as they progressed through puberty. The peak FOR was considerably higher (P<0.05) in boys at Tanner 1 (8.6+/-1.5 mg.kg lean body mass(-1).min(-1)) (mean+/-SD) compared with men (4.2+/-1.1 mg.kg lean body mass(-1).min(-1)). FOR dropped as boys developed through puberty (Tanner 2/3 peak rate=7.6+/-0.6 mg.kg lean body mass(-1).min(-1); Tanner 4 peak rate=5.4+/-1.8 mg.kg lean body mass(-1).min(-1), main effect of Tanner stage; P<0.05) to the levels found in men (not significant). The exercise intensity that elicited peak FOR was higher in the boys at Tanner 1 [56+/-6% peak aerobic power (VO2 peak)] than in men (31+/-4% VO2 peak) (P<0.001). This value tended to decrease by Tanner stage 4 (45+/-10% VO2 peak, main effect of Tanner stage; P=0.06). We conclude that, compared with men, prepubertal boys have higher relative FOR throughout a wide range of exercise intensities and that FOR drops as boys develop through puberty.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".