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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".