Whole-body fat oxidation increases more by prior exercise than overnight fasting in elite endurance athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare whole-body fat oxidation kinetics after prior exercise with overnight fasting in elite endurance athletes. Thirteen highly trained athletes (9 men and 4 women; maximal oxygen uptake: 66 ± 1 mL·min(-1)·kg(-1)) performed 3 identical submaximal incremental tests on a cycle ergometer using a cross-over design. A control test (CON) was performed 3 h after a standardized breakfast, a fasting test (FAST) 12 h after a standardized evening meal, and a postexercise test (EXER) after standardized breakfast, endurance exercise, and 2 h fasting recovery. The test consisted of 3 min each at 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, and 80% of maximal oxygen uptake and fat oxidation rates were measured through indirect calorimetry. During CON, maximal fat oxidation rate was 0.51 ± 0.04 g·min(-1) compared with 0.69 ± 0.04 g·min(-1) in FAST (P < 0.01), and 0.89 ± 0.05 g·min(-1) in EXER (P < 0.01). Across all intensities, EXER was significantly higher than FAST and FAST was higher than CON (P < 0.01). Blood insulin levels were lower and free fatty acid and cortisol levels were higher at the start of EXER compared with CON and FAST (P < 0.05). Plasma nuclear magnetic resonance-metabolomics showed similar changes in both EXER and FAST, including increased levels of fatty acids and succinate. In conclusion, prior exercise significantly increases whole-body fat oxidation during submaximal exercise compared with overnight fasting. Already high rates of maximal fat oxidation in elite endurance athletes were increased by approximately 75% after prior exercise and fasting recovery.
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".