Comparison of exogenous glucose, fructose and galactose oxidation during exercise using <sup>13</sup>C-labelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Six subjects exercised for 120 min on a cycle ergometer (65 (se 3) % VO2max) when ingesting a placebo or glucose, fructose or galactose (100 g in 1000 ml water) labelled with 13C. The oxidation of energy substrates including exogenous hexoses was compared using indirect respiratory calorimetry and 13CO2 production at the mouth. Total carbohydrate progressively decreased and total fat oxidation increased over the 120 min exercise period in the four experimental situations. During the 120 min of exercise, the amount of fructose oxidized (38.8 (se 2.6) g; 9.0 (se 0.6) % energy yield) was not significantly (approximately 4 %) lower than that of exogenous glucose (40.5 (se 3.4) g; 9.2 (se 0.8) % energy yield), while that of galactose (23.7 (se 3.5) g; 5.5 (se 0.9) % energy yield) was only 59 % and 61 % that of glucose and fructose, respectively. When compared with the placebo, the ingestion and oxidation of the three hexoses did not significantly modify fat oxidation or total carbohydrate oxidation, but it significantly reduced (9-13 %) endogenous carbohydrate oxidation. The present data indicate that fructose and exogenous glucose ingested during exercise could be oxidized at a similar rate, but that the oxidation rate of galactose was only approximately 60 % that of the exogenous glucose and fructose, presumably because of a preferential incorporation of galactose into liver glycogen (Leloir pathway). The reduction in endogenous carbohydrate oxidation was, however, similar with the three hexoses.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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".