Effect of training status and exercise mode on endogenous steroid hormones in men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the acute anabolic and catabolic hormone response to endurance and resistance exercise bouts of equal volume in subjects with differing training status. Twenty-two healthy men were recruited who were either resistance trained (n = 7), endurance trained (n = 8), or sedentary (n = 7). Three sessions were completed: a resting session, a 40-min run at 50-55% maximal oxygen consumption, and a resistance exercise session. Expired gases were monitored continuously during exercise, and the endurance and resistance exercise sessions were individually matched for caloric expenditure. Blood samples were drawn before exercise and 1, 2, 3, and 4 h after the start of the exercise. Plasma was analyzed for luteinizing hormone, dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate, cortisol, and free and total testosterone. Androgens increased in response to exercise, particularly resistance exercise, whereas cortisol only increased after resistance exercise. Dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate levels increased during the resistance exercise session and remained elevated during recovery in the resistance-trained subjects. Endurance-trained subjects displayed less pronounced changes in hormone concentrations in response to exercise than resistance-trained subjects. After an initial postexercise increase, there was a significant decline in free and total testosterone during recovery from resistance exercise (P < 0.05), particularly in resistance-trained subjects. On the basis of the results of this study, it appears that the endogenous hormone profile of men is more dependent on exercise mode or intensity than exercise volume as measured by caloric expenditure. The relatively catabolic environment observed during the resistance session may indicate an intensity-rather than a mode-dependent response.
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".