Sex-related differences in fuel utilization and hormonal response to exercise: implications for individuals with type 1 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sex-related differences in metabolic and neuroendocrine response to exercise in individuals without diabetes have been well established. Men and women differ in fuel selection during exercise, in which women rely to a greater extent on fat oxidation, whereas males rely mostly on carbohydrate oxidation for energy production. The difference in fuel selection appears to be mediated by sex-related differences in hormonal (including catecholamines, growth hormone, and estrogen) response to different types and intensities of exercise. In general, men exhibit an amplified counter-regulatory response to exercise, with elevated levels of catecholamines compared with women. However, women exhibit greater sensitivity to the lipolytic action of the catecholamines and deplete less of their glycogen stores than men during exercise, which suggests that women may experience a greater defense in blood glucose control after exercise than men. Conversely, little is known about sex-related differences in response to exercise in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). A single study investigating sex-related differences in response to moderate aerobic exercise in individuals with T1D found sex-related differences in catecholamine response and fuel selection, but changes in blood glucose were not measured. To our knowledge, there are no studies investigating sex-related differences in blood glucose responses to different types and intensities of exercise in individuals with T1D. This review summarizes sex-related differences in exercise responses that could potentially impact blood glucose levels during exercise in individuals with T1D and highlights the need for further research.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".