Sex difference in substrate oxidation during low-intensity isometric exercise in young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low-intensity physical activity is increasingly promoted as an alternative to sedentary behavior. However, much research to date has focused on moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity, and in particular dynamic work, with the effect of low-intensity isometric exercise (<4 METs) on substrate utilization yet to be explored. Here we investigate the effects of such exercise on respiratory quotient (RQ) and determine the extent of intra- and inter-individual variability in response. Energy expenditure, RQ, and substrate oxidation were measured by ventilated-hood indirect calorimetry at rest and in response to standardized, intermittent, low-level isometric leg-press exercises at 5 loads (+5, +10, +15, +20, +25 kg) in 26 healthy, young adults. Nine participants repeated the experiment on 3 separate days to assess within-subject, between-day variability. There was no significant difference in energy cost and heart rate responses to low-intensity isometric exercise (<2 METs) between men and women. However, a sex difference was apparent in terms of substrate oxidation - with men increasing both fat and carbohydrate oxidation, and women only increasing fat oxidation while maintaining carbohydrate oxidation at baseline, resting levels. This sex difference was repeatable and persisted when substrate oxidation was adjusted for differences in body weight or body composition. Individual variability in RQ was relatively low, with both intra- and inter-individual coefficients of variation in the range of 3%-6% in both sexes. These results suggest that women preferentially increase fat oxidation during low-level isometric exercise. Whether such physical activity could be incorporated into treatment/prevention strategies aimed at optimizing fat oxidation in women warrants further investigation.
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".