Patterns of fuel use during locomotion in mammals revisited: the importance of aerobic scope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fuel selection patterns during exercise are thought to be conserved among sea-level native mammals when intensity is expressed relative to maximum aerobic capacity (V̇(O₂,max)). However, this claim is based on data from only a few species larger than rats, and has never been tested statistically. Thus, we investigated fuel use in a small mammal (Mus musculus, CD-1 strain), and combined these data with published data on rats, dogs, goats and humans to evaluate the robustness of the mammalian fuel selection model. We found that mice rely less on carbohydrates to power moderate intensity exercise at the same % V̇(O₂,max) than larger mammals. We suggest that this difference is due to a decline in aerobic scope (O2 available for exercise above resting metabolism) as body size decreases. We propose a redefined fuel use model that reflects changes in fractional aerobic scope with body size. Our results indicate that exercise defined as percent aerobic scope is a better predictor of fuel use across a wide range of quadruped species from mice to dogs and running humans.
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 | 0.001 | 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".