Cortisol, blood pressure, and heart rate responses to food intake were independent of physical fitness levels in women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research tested the hypothesis that women who had higher levels of physical fitness will have lower hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal axis (cortisol) and sympatho-adrenal medullary system (blood pressure and heart rate) responses to food intake compared with women who had low levels of physical fitness. Lower fitness (n = 22; maximal oxygen consumption = 27.4 ± 1.0 mL∙kg(-1)·min(-1)) and higher fitness (n = 22; maximal oxygen consumption = 41.9 ± 1.6 mL∙kg(-1)·min(-1)) women (aged 30-50 years; in the follicular phase of the menstrual cycle) who participated in levels of physical activity that met (lower fitness = 2.7 ± 0.5 h/week) or considerably exceeded (higher fitness = 7.1 ± 1.4 h/week) physical activity guidelines made their own lunch using standardised ingredients at 1200 h. Concentrations of cortisol were measured in blood samples collected every 15 min from 1145-1400 h. Blood pressures and heart rate were also measured every 15 min between 1145 h and 1400 h. The meal consumed by the participants consisted of 20% protein, 61% carbohydrates, and 19% fat. There was a significant overall response to lunch in all of the parameters measured (time effect for all, p < 0.01). The cortisol response to lunch was not significantly different between the groups (time × treatment, p = 0.882). Overall, both groups showed the same pattern of cortisol secretion (treatment p = 0.839). Systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure, or heart rate responses (time × treatment, p = 0.726, 0.898, 0.713, and 0.620, respectively) were also similar between higher and lower fitness women. Results suggest that the physiological response to food intake in women is quite resistant to modification by elevated physical fitness levels.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".