Gender differences in glucoregulatory responses to intense exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared glucoregulatory responses to intense exercise (14 min at 88% maximum O(2) uptake) between genders (16 men, 12 women). Analysis of covariance of maximum O(2) uptake showed no gender effect, with 82% of variance due to fat-free mass (FFM). Glycemia rose comparably during exercise but was higher in women during recovery (P = 0.02). Glucose production [rate of appearance (R(a)); in mg/min] increased markedly in both; stepwise multiple regression and analysis of covariance of R(a) (peak and incremental area under the curve) showed no effect of gender, body weight, or FFM. Glucose uptake [rate of disappearance (R(d))] increased less than R(a) and slower in women. R(d) area under the curve related to FFM (P = 0.01) but not gender or body weight. Norepinephrine and epinephrine responses (13-18x baseline) were the same and correlated significantly with R(a). Exercise insulin and glucagon changes were slight, but postexercise hyperinsulinemia was greater in women (P = 0.018), along with higher R(d). Therefore, intense exercise glucoregulation is qualitatively similar between genders, with a "feed-forward" regulation of R(a) (consistent with catecholamine mediation). However, women have a lesser R(d) response, related to FFM. This combination leads to greater recovery-period hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia.
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) | 0.002 | 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".