Different training responses to eccentric endurance exercise at low and moderate altitudes in pre-diabetic men: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This pilot study aimed (a) to evaluate the effects of eccentric exercise training at low and moderate altitudes on physical fitness in pre-diabetic men and (b) to establish whether or not oxidative stress levels and antioxidant status were associated with performance improvements. In this crossover trial, five pre-diabetic men conducted nine downhill walking sessions (3 days/week, 3 consecutive weeks) at low altitude (from 1360 to 850 m) and one year later at moderate altitude (from 2447 to 2000 m). Exercise testing and the determination of parameters of oxidative stress and antioxidant capacity were performed pre- and post-training. The biological antioxidant activity of plasma (BAP) increased after eccentric training at moderate altitude ( p < 0.001), whereas diacron reactive oxygen metabolites (dROMs) remained unchanged. Also, the BAP/dROMs ratio increased only after training at moderate-altitude training ( p = 0.009). Maximum power output improved after training at low altitude and the changes were significantly related to baseline BAP/dROMs ratio ( r = 0.90). No decrease was seen for fasting plasma glucose. Eccentric exercise training in pre-diabetic men improved performance only when performed at low altitude and this improvement was positively related to the baseline BAP/dROMs ratio. In contrast, 3 weeks of eccentric exercise training increased BAP levels and the BAP/dROMs ratio only at moderate altitude without improving the performance. Thus, one might speculate that the BAP/dROMs ratio has to increase before performance improvements occur at moderate altitude.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".