Physiologic responses to a thermogenic nutritional supplement at rest, during low-intensity exercise, and during recovery from exercise in college-aged women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined acute physiologic responses to a thermogenic nutritional supplement at rest, during exercise, and during recovery from exercise in women. Twelve women (mean ± SD age, 22.9 ± 3.1 years) were recruited for this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover study. Each testing session consisted of 4 phases: 30 min of presupplementation resting, followed by the ingestion of the placebo or thermogenic nutritional supplement; 50 min of postsupplementation resting; 60 min of walking (at 3.2-4.8 km·h(-1)); and 50 min of postexercise resting. Energy expenditure (EE), oxygen consumption, respiratory exchange ratio (RER), oxygen (O2) pulse, and heart rate (HR) values were recorded during all 4 phases. Systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure were recorded during the rest, postsupplementation, and postexercise recovery phases; ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were recorded only during exercise. There were no significant differences for EE, oxygen consumption, O2 pulse, HR, SBP, or DBP between the supplement and placebo during the presupplementation resting or postsupplementation phases. The RER, however, was higher with the supplement at 30 min postsupplementation. During exercise, EE and O2 pulse were 3%-6% greater with the supplement than placebo; there were no significant differences in RPE. Postexercise, EE, oxygen consumption, and DBP were 3%-7% greater with the supplement than placebo. These findings suggest that a thermogenic nutritional supplement, when combined with exercise, increases metabolic rate but has no effect on the perception of effort and results in only minimal changes in cardiovascular function.
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) | 0.001 | 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".