MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2757145102 · doi:10.3389/fnut.2017.00049

Carbohydrate-Restriction with High-Intensity Interval Training: An Optimal Combination for Treating Metabolic Diseases?

2017· article· en· W2757145102 on OpenAlexaff
Monique E. François, Jenna B. Gillen, Jonathan P. Little

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Nutrition · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet and metabolism studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPostprandialCardiorespiratory fitnessMedicineHigh-intensity interval trainingInterval trainingCarbohydrateInternal medicinePhysical therapyEndocrinologyInsulin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lifestyle interventions incorporating both diet and exercise strategies remain cornerstone therapies for treating metabolic disease. Carbohydrate-restriction and high-intensity interval training (HIIT) have independently been shown to improve cardiovascular and metabolic health. Carbohydrate-restriction reduces postprandial hyperglycemia, thereby limiting potential deleterious metabolic and cardiovascular consequences of excessive glucose excursions. Additionally, carbohydrate-restriction has been shown to improve body composition and blood lipids. The benefits of exercise for improving insulin sensitivity are well known. In this regard, HIIT has been shown to rapidly improve glucose control, endothelial function, and cardiorespiratory fitness. Here, we report the available evidence for each strategy and speculate that the combination of carbohydrate-restriction and HIIT will synergistically maximize the benefits of both approaches. We hypothesize that this lifestyle strategy represents an optimal intervention to treat metabolic disease; however, further research is warranted in order to harness the potential benefits of carbohydrate-restriction and HIIT for improving cardiometabolic health.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NutritionSame topicDiet and metabolism studiesFrench-language works237,207