The Effect of Normobaric Hypoxic Confinement on Metabolism, Gut Hormones, and Body Composition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To assess the effect of normobaric hypoxia on metabolism, gut hormones, and body composition, 11 normal weight, aerobically trained (O2peak: 60.6 ± 9.5 ml·kg(-1)·min(-1)) men (73.0 ± 7.7 kg; 23.7 ± 4.0 years, BMI 22.2 ± 2.4 kg·m(-2)) were confined to a normobaric (altitude ≃ 940 m) normoxic (NORMOXIA; PIO2 ≃ 133.2 mmHg) or normobaric hypoxic (HYPOXIA; PIO was reduced from 105.6 to 97.7 mmHg over 10 days) environment for 10 days in a randomized cross-over design. The wash-out period between confinements was 3 weeks. During each 10-day period, subjects avoided strenuous physical activity and were under continuous nutritional control. Before, and at the end of each exposure, subjects completed a meal tolerance test (MTT), during which blood glucose, insulin, GLP-1, ghrelin, peptide-YY, adrenaline, noradrenaline, leptin, and gastro-intestinal blood flow and appetite sensations were measured. There was no significant change in body weight in either of the confinements (NORMOXIA: -0.7 ± 0.2 kg; HYPOXIA: -0.9 ± 0.2 kg), but a significant increase in fat mass in NORMOXIA (0.23 ± 0.45 kg), but not in HYPOXIA (0.08 ± 0.08 kg). HYPOXIA confinement increased fasting noradrenaline and decreased energy intake, the latter most likely associated with increased fasting leptin. The majority of all other measured variables/responses were similar in NORMOXIA and HYPOXIA. To conclude, normobaric hypoxic confinement without exercise training results in negative energy balance due to primarily reduced energy intake.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".