No difference in exogenous carbohydrate oxidation during exercise in children with and without impaired glucose tolerance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The capacity to match carbohydrate (CHO) utilization with availability is impaired in insulin-resistant, obese adults at rest. Understanding exogenous carbohydrate (CHOexo) oxidation during exercise and its association to insulin resistance (IR) is important, especially in children at risk for type 2 diabetes. Our objective was to examine the oxidative efficiency of CHOexo during exercise in obese children with normal glucose tolerance (NGT) or impaired glucose tolerance (IGT). Children attended two visits and were identified as NGT (n = 22) or IGT (n = 12) based on 2-h oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) glucose levels of <7.8 mmol/l or ≥7.8 mmol/l, respectively. Anthropometry, body composition, and aerobic fitness (V̇o2max) were assessed. Insulin and glucose at baseline, 30, 60, 90, and 120 min during the OGTT were used to calculate measures of insulin sensitivity. On a separate day, a (13)C-enriched CHO drink was ingested before exercise (3 × 20 min bouts) at 45% V̇o2max Breath measurements were collected to calculate CHOexo oxidative efficiency. CHOexo oxidative efficiency during exercise was similar in IGT (17.0 ± 3.6%) compared with NGT (17.1 ± 4.4%) (P = 0.90) despite lower whole body insulin sensitivity in IGT at rest (P = 0.02). Area under the curve for insulin (AUCins) measured at rest during the OGTT was greater in IGT compared with NGT (P = 0.04). The ability of skeletal muscle to utilize CHOexo was not impaired during exercise in children with IGT.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".