Coingesting Glucose and Fructose in the Cold Potentiates Exogenous CHO Oxidation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Current understanding of exogenous CHO metabolism during cold exposure is limited but suggests that exogenous glucose oxidation reaches a maximum of ~200 mg · min(-1) at a glucose ingestion rate of 400 mg · min(-1). The aim of the present study was to determine whether ingesting glucose in combination with fructose (GLU + FRU) after 60 min of cold exposure could increase the rate of exogenous CHO oxidation and reduce the reliance on endogenous CHO reserves compared with ingesting a glucose drink (GLU). METHODS: Six healthy non-cold-acclimatized men were exposed to low-intensity shivering (~2.5 times resting metabolic rate) for a duration of 150 min on two occasions. Subjects consumed a (13)C-enriched CHO drink ((13)C-enriched glucose and fructose) providing 400 mg · min(-1) of glucose + 400 mg · min(-1) of fructose (GLU + FRU) or 800 mg · min(-1) of glucose alone (GLU) after 60 min of cold exposure. RESULTS: The peak exogenous CHO oxidation rate was 30% greater in GLU + FRU compared with GLU (209 ± 62 vs 159 ± 42 mg · min(-1), respectively, P < 0.05). This contributed to a 16% increase in total CHO oxidation (406 ± 100 vs 351 ± 80 mg · min(-1), respectively, P < 0.05). The utilization of endogenous CHO sources was the same between experimental conditions but was nearly 2.5 times lower than values previously reported by our laboratory when only water was ingested (192-197 vs 456 mg · min(-1), respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the greater exogenous and total CHO oxidation rate observed in the GLU + FRU condition was a result of increased systemic appearance of CHO from consuming multiple transportable CHO and/or the supplementary substrate provided from fructose conversion to glucose and lactate in the liver.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".